Variations in exercise ventilation in hypoxia will affect oxygen uptake

Abstract

Reports of VO2 response differences between normoxia and hypoxia during incremental exercise do not agree. In this study VO2 and VE were obtained from 15-s averages at identical work rates during continuous incremental cycle exercise in 8 subjects under ambient pressure (633 mmHg ≈1,600 m) and during duplicate tests in acute hypobaric hypoxia (455 mmHg ≈4,350 m), ranging from 49 to 100% of VO2 peak in hypoxia and 42–87% of VO2 peak in normoxia. The average VO2 was 96 mL/min (619 mL) lower at 455 mmHg (n.s. P = 0.15) during ramp exercises. Individual response points were better described by polynomial than linear equations (mL/min/W). The VE was greater in hypoxia, with marked individual variation in the differences which correlated significantly and directly with the VO2 difference between 455 mmHg and 633 mmHg (P = 0.002), likely related to work of breathing (Wb). The greater VE at 455 mmHg resulted from a greater breathing frequency. When a subject's hypoxic ventilatory response is high, the extra work of breathing reduces mechanical efficiency (E). Mean ∆E calculated from individual linear slopes was 27.7 and 30.3% at 633 and 455 mmHg, respectively (n.s.). Gross efficiency (GE) calculated from mean VO2 and work rate and correcting for Wb from a VE–VO2 relationship reported previously, gave corresponding values of 20.6 and 21.8 (P = 0.05). Individual variation in VE among individuals overshadows average trends, as also apparent from other reports comparing hypoxia and normoxia during progressive exercise and must be considered in such studies.

Differential impact of heat and hypoxia on dynamic oxygen uptake and deoxyhemoglobin parameters during incremental exhaustive exercise

“…Therefore, during exercise under heat stress, athletes may reduce their oxygen consumption, which can result in a decrease in and . Additionally, our study observed a significant decrease in and OUES of athletes under low-oxygen conditions, which aligns with the research findings of Wagner ( Wagner et al, 1986 ) and Loeppky ( Loeppky et al, 2020 ). However, it is important to note that these two studies did not specifically compare the slope of before and after the GET.…”