论文部分内容阅读
50名45—60岁知识分子(男28名、女22名)接受了自行车递增负荷通气阈T(vent)测定,6名在6周休疗锻炼前后测定通气阈进行比较。在判定T(vent) 的同时,评定了50名受试者HR 120[T(cvent)平均心率]时的负荷功率(P)和摄氧量(VO_2)。结果表明:本文中男性和女性VO_2-T(vent)分别为1.13±0.2L/min和0.85±0.19L/min,P-T(vent)分别为76.61±18.41W和45±18.19W;男女性HR-T(vent)均值为119.76±8.55b/min;本研究中通气阈测定法可以灵敏地评估患者康复体疗疗效;P-HR 120(PWC 120)与P-T(vent)以及VO_2-HR 120与VO_2-T(vent)间相关系数分别为0.8和0.77;PWC 120可以反映本文受试者群体的T(vent)体力活动能力,但反映个体时有一定误差;在评价患者康复体疗疗效时,与T(vent)相比,PWC 120不够灵敏。
Fifty intellectuals aged 45-60 years (male 28, female 22) were tested for increased cycling ventilation T (vent), and six were compared before and after six weeks of rehabilitation exercise. Simultaneously with the determination of T (vent), the load power (P) and oxygen uptake (VO_2) of 50 subjects at HR 120 [T (cvent) average heart rate] were evaluated. The results showed that VO_2-T (vent) in male and female were 1.13 ± 0.2L / min and 0.85 ± 0.19L / min, respectively, and PT (vent) were 76.61 ± 18.41W and 45 ± 18.19W in both men and women. The average value of T (vent) was 119.76 ± 8.55b / min. In this study, the ventilation threshold was used to evaluate the rehabilitation efficacy of patients with physical rehabilitation. The P-HR 120 (PWC 120), PT -T (vent) were 0.8 and 0.77 respectively; PWC 120 could reflect the T (vent) physical activity ability of the subjects in this paper, but there was a certain error when reflecting the individual. In evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of rehabilitation physical therapy, PWC 120 is less sensitive than T (vent).