IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i14p5239-d387231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Focused Review on the Maximal Exercise Responses in Hypo- and Normobaric Hypoxia: Divergent Oxygen Uptake and Ventilation Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt Treml

    (Department of General and Surgical Intensive Care, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Hannes Gatterer

    (Institute of Mountain Emergency Medicine, Eurac Research, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Johannes Burtscher

    (Institute of Sport Sciences, Synathlon, Uni-Centre, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)

  • Axel Kleinsasser

    (Postoperative Critical Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Martin Burtscher

    (Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
    Austrian Society for Alpine and Mountain Medicine, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

Abstract

The literature suggests that acute hypobaric (HH) and normobaric (NH) hypoxia exposure elicits different physiological responses. Only limited information is available on whether maximal cardiorespiratory exercise test outcomes, performed on either the treadmill or the cycle ergometer, are affected differently by NH and HH. A focused literature review was performed to identify relevant studies reporting cardiorespiratory responses in well-trained male athletes (individuals with a maximal oxygen uptake, VO 2 max > 50 mL/min/kg at sea level) to cycling or treadmill running in simulated acute HH or NH. Twenty-one studies were selected. The exercise tests in these studies were performed in HH ( n = 90) or NH ( n = 151) conditions, on a bicycle ergometer ( n = 178) or on a treadmill ( n = 63). Altitudes (simulated and terrestrial) varied between 2182 and 5400 m. Analyses (based on weighted group means) revealed that the decline in VO 2max per 1000 m gain in altitude was more pronounced in acute NH vs. HH (−7.0 ± 1.4% vs. −5.6 ± 0.9%). Maximal minute ventilation (VE max ) increased in acute HH but decreased in NH with increasing simulated altitude (+1.9 ± 0.9% vs. −1.4 ± 1.8% per 1000 m gain in altitude). Treadmill running in HH caused larger decreases in arterial oxygen saturation and heart rate than ergometer cycling in acute HH, which was not the case in NH. These results indicate distinct differences between maximal cardiorespiratory responses to cycling and treadmill running in acute NH or HH. Such differences should be considered when interpreting exercise test results and/or monitoring athletic training.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt Treml & Hannes Gatterer & Johannes Burtscher & Axel Kleinsasser & Martin Burtscher, 2020. "A Focused Review on the Maximal Exercise Responses in Hypo- and Normobaric Hypoxia: Divergent Oxygen Uptake and Ventilation Responses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:14:p:5239-:d:387231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/14/5239/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/14/5239/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannes Gatterer & Verena Menz & Martin Burtscher, 2021. "Acute Moderate Hypoxia Reduces One-Legged Cycling Performance Despite Compensatory Increase in Peak Cardiac Output: A Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Ailsa Westmacott & Nilihan E. M. Sanal-Hayes & Marie McLaughlin & Jacqueline L. Mair & Lawrence D. Hayes, 2022. "High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) in Hypoxia Improves Maximal Aerobic Capacity More Than HIIT in Normoxia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:14:p:5239-:d:387231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.