BioMed Central home | Journals A-Z | Feedback | My details

Open AccessHighly AccessResearch

Oxygen cost of dynamic or isometric exercise relative to recruited muscle mass

Christopher P Elder1, Edward T Mahoney1, Christopher D Black1, Jill M Slade1 and Gary A Dudley1,2

Department of Kinesiology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Crawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, GA, USA

Dynamic Medicine 2006, 5:9doi:10.1186/1476-5918-5-9

Published: 11 September 2006

Abstract

Background

Oxygen cost of different muscle actions may be influenced by different recruitment and rate coding strategies. The purpose of this study was to account for these strategies by comparing the oxygen cost of dynamic and isometric muscle actions relative to the muscle mass recruited via surface electrical stimulation of the knee extensors.

Methods

Comparisons of whole body pulmonary Δ MathO2 were made in seven young healthy adults (1 female) during 3 minutes of dynamic or isometric knee extensions, both induced by surface electrical stimulation. Recruited mass was quantified in T2 weighted spin echo magnetic resonance images.

Results

The Δ MathO2 for dynamic muscle actions, 242 ± 128 ml • min-1 (mean ± SD) was greater (p = 0.003) than that for isometric actions, 143 ± 99 ml • min-1. Recruited muscle mass was also greater (p = 0.004) for dynamic exercise, 0.716 ± 282 versus 0.483 ± 0.139 kg. The rate of oxygen consumption per unit of recruited muscle (Math) was similar in dynamic and isometric exercise (346 ± 162 versus 307 ± 198 ml • kg-1 • min-1; p = 0.352), but the Math calculated relative to initial knee extensor torque was significantly greater during dynamic exercise 5.1 ± 1.5 versus 3.6 ± 1.6 ml • kg-1 • Nm-1 • min-1 (p = 0.019).

Conclusion

These results are consistent with the view that oxygen cost of dynamic and isometric actions is determined by different circumstances of mechanical interaction between actin and myosin in the sarcomere, and that muscle recruitment has only a minor role.


© 1999-2010 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.