Menstrual Cycle Phases Influence on Cardiorespiratory Response to Exercise in Endurance-Trained Females

Purpose: To examine the influence of menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) cycle phases on physiological variables monitored during incremental treadmill testing in physically active women (eumenorrheic, EUM = 16 and monophasic HC-users, CHC = 12).Methods: Four running tests to exhaustion were performed at bleeding, mid follicular (mid FOL)/active 1, ovulation/active 2, and mid luteal (mid LUT)/inactive. HC and MC phases were confirmed from serum hormones. Heart rate (HR), blood lactate (Bla), and V˙O2 were monitored, while aerobic (AerT) and anaerobic (AnaT) thresholds were determined. V˙O2peak, maximal running speed (RUNpeak), and total running time (RUNtotal) were recorded.Results: No significant changes were observed in V˙O2 or Bla at AerT or AnaT across phases in either group. At maximal effort, absolute and relative V˙O2peak, RUNpeak, and RUNtotal remained stable across phases in both groups. No significant fluctuations in HRmax were observed across phases, but HR at both AerT and AnaT tended to be lower in EUM than in CHC across phases.Conclusion: Hormonal fluctuations over the MC and HC do not systematically influence physiological variables monitored during incremental treadmill testing. Between group differences in HR at AerT and AnaT underline why HR-based training should be prescribed individually, while recording of MC or HC use when testing should be encouraged as phase may explain minor, but possibly meaningful, changes in, e.g., Bla concentrations or differences in HR response.

While established methods for determining physiologic exercise thresholds and intensity distribution such as gas exchange or lactate testing are appropriate for the laboratory setting, they are not easily obtainable for most participants. Data over the past two years has indicated that the short-term scaling exponent alpha1 of Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA a1), a heart rate variability (HRV) index representing the degree of fractal correlation properties of the cardiac beat sequence, shows promise as an alternative for exercise load assessment. Unlike conventional HRV indexes, it possesses a dynamic range throughout all intensity zones and does not require prior calibration with an incremental exercise test. A DFA a1 value of 0.75, reflecting values midway between well correlated fractal patterns and uncorrelated behavior, has been shown to be associated with the aerobic threshold in elite, recreational and cardiac disease populations and termed the heart rate variability threshold (HRVT). Further loss of fractal correlation properties indicative of random beat patterns, signifying an autonomic state of unsustainability (DFA a1 of 0.5), may be associated with that of the anaerobic threshold. There is minimal bias in DFA a1 induced by common artifact correction methods at levels below 3% and negligible change in HRVT even at levels of 6%. DFA a1 has also shown value for exercise load management in situations where standard intensity targets can be skewed such as eccentric cycling. Currently, several web sites and smartphone apps have been developed to track DFA a1 in retrospect or in real-time, making field assessment of physiologic exercise thresholds and internal load assessment practical. Although of value when viewed in isolation, DFA a1 tracking in combination with non-autonomic markers such as power/pace, open intriguing possibilities regarding athlete durability, identification of endurance exercise fatigue and optimization of daily training guidance.

The development of new models of face masks makes it necessary to compare their impact on exercise. Therefore, the aim of this work was to compare the cardiopulmonary response to a maximal incremental test, perceived ventilation, exertion, and comfort using FFP2 or Emotion masks in young female athletes. Thirteen healthy sportswomen (22.08 ± 1.75 years) performed a spirometry, and a graded exercise test on a treadmill, with a JAEGER® Vyntus CPX gas analyzer using an ergospirometry mask (ErgoMask) or wearing the FFP2 or the Emotion mask below the ErgoMask, randomized on 3 consecutive days. Also, menstrual cycle status was monitored to avoid possible intrasubject alterations. The results showed lower values for the ErgoMask+FFP2, compared to ErgoMask or ErgoMask+Emotion, in forced vital capacity (3.8 ± 0.2, 4.5 ± 0.2 and 4.1 ± 0.1 l, respectively); forced expiratory volume in 1 s (3.3 ± 0.2, 3.7 ± 0.2 and 3.5 ± 0.1 l); ventilation (40.9 ± 1.5, 50.6 ± 1.5 and 46.9 ± 1.2 l/min); breathing frequency (32.7 ± 1.1, 37.4 ± 1.1 and 35.3 ± 1.4 bpm); VE/VO2 (30.5 ± 0.7, 34.6 ± 0.9 and 33.6 ± 0.7); VE/VCO2 (32.2 ± 0.6, 36.2 ± 0.9 and 34.4 ± 0.7) and time to exhaustion (492.4 ± 9.7, 521.7 ± 8.6 and 520.1 ± 9.5 s) and higher values in inspiratory time (0.99 ± 0.04, 0.82 ± 0.03 and 0.88 ± 0.03 s). In conclusion, in young healthy female athletes, the Emotion showed better preservation of cardiopulmonary responses than the FFP2.