Home > Journals > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche > Past Issues > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2013 May;172(5) > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2013 May;172(5):343-50

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

GAZZETTA MEDICA ITALIANA ARCHIVIO PER LE SCIENZE MEDICHE

A Journal on Internal Medicine and Pharmacology


Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2013 May;172(5):343-50

language: English

Blood lactate kinetics on passive and active recovery

Ramos-Jiménez Arnulfo A. 1, Hernández-Torres R. P. 2, Wall-Medrano A. 1, Juarez-Oropeza M. A. 3, Vera-Elizalde M. 1

1 Health Science, Biomedical Science Institute Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez Ciudad Juárez, Mexico;
2 Physical Education School Autonomous University of Chihuahua Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico;
3 Biochemical, Department, Medicine School National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico D.F.


PDF  


Aim.:The aim of this paper was to evaluate the blood lactate ([La-]b) recovery kinetics and determinate the associations between the [La-]b recovery kinetics and physical capacity on physically active men.
Methods: Seventeen healthy and physically active men took part in three recovery protocols (passive, cycling and walking), subsequent to a Wingate Anaerobic Test. The [La-]b was measured by a potentiometer-enzymatic analysis, the maximum O2 consumption (VO2max) using a metabolic cart, the heart rate by a heart rate monitor and the body mass from anthropometry.
Results: Active recovery (walking and cycling recovery) had smaller peak [La-]b concentration time, [La-]b smaller area under the curve ([La-]b auc), and higher [La-]b removal (γ2) than passive recovery. Moreover, the walking recovery had the smallest [La-]b accumulation final, the smallest [La-]b auc, and the highest [La-]b recovery index (p<0.05). The [La-]b recovery kinetics was depend on physical capacity of the subjects: during passive recovery >79% of the variance were explained by workload auc, muscle mass and lactate threshold (LT); during active recovery >73% of the variance were explained by age, muscle mass, VO2max and LT.
Conclusion: The variations on [La-]b recovery kinetics depended principally by the subject’s physical capacity. The [La-]b recovery kinetics were more efficient during active than during passive recovery (walking >cycling >passive recovery).

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail