Journal of Applied Physiology AJP: Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 99: 778, 2005; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00600.2005
8750-7587/05 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Panchev, V. S
Right arrow Articles by Pancheva, M. V
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Panchev, V. S
Right arrow Articles by Pancheva, M. V

POINT-COUNTERPOINT COMMENTS

The muscle pump is not an important determinant of muscle blood flow during exercise.

Vladimir S Panchev, Adelina V Suvandjieva, and Marieta V Pancheva

e-mail: vladimir{at}vam-panchev.com

This letter is in response to the Point-Counterpoint series "The muscle pump is/is not an important determinant of muscle blood flow during exercise" that appeared in the July issue (vol. 99: 371–375, 2005; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00381; http://jap.physiology.org/content/vol99/issue1).

Letter to Editor: We appreciate the initiative for this topic, which can become a starting point for reconsidering the entire theory of the blood circulation, a purpose that we have sought to achieve in the last two years. Our opinion is that the muscle pump is definitely not an important determinant of muscle blood flow during exercise, although in particular circumstances it can have a net positive effect on it (1). However, we find it difficult to understand the extent to which the muscle pump contribution to muscle blood flow is investigated isolated from the venous supply to the heart, considering that during intensive exercise this flow can reach up to 85% of total blood volume, and also the extent to which this contribution is examined predominantly during dynamic exercise, neglecting the mechanisms that ensure the blood return in the absence of muscle pump, for example, at resting upright posture, in steady-state isometric contraction, or in early passive recovery (2). This may be the key point for the entire confusion in the matter. Is it not conclusive enough that by continuous isometric contraction, "unknown" factors ensure the venous return against the inhibitory action of muscle contraction? Or, which one of both, agonist-antagonist, muscles is the muscle pump motor, considering the generally neutral vein position?

Our theory is that the venous return is effectuated through transmural arterial pulsations, arteriovenous anastomoses, and arteriovenous capillary bridges. This ensures the autonomous functioning of the cardiovascular system, independently from the central nervous system, on which the muscle contractions are subordinate.

REFERENCES

  1. Lutjemeier B, Miura A, Scheuermann B, Koga S, Townsend D, and Barstow T. Muscle contraction-blood flow interactions during upright knee extension exercise in humans. J Appl Physiol 98: 1575–1583, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Rowland T and Lisowski R. Determinants of diastolic cardiac filling during exercise. J Sport Med Phys Fitness 43: 380–385, 2003.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
M. V. Pancheva, V. S. Panchev, A. V. Suvandjieva, C. T. P. Krediet, J. J. van Lieshout, and W. Wieling
Improved orthostatic tolerance by leg crossing and muscle tensing: indisputable evidence for the arteriovenous pump existence
J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2006; 101(4): 1271 - 1272.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
M. V. Pancheva, V. S. Panchev, A. V. Suvandjieva, and B. D. Levine
Lower body negative pressure vs. lower body positive pressure to prevent cardiac atrophy after bed rest and spaceflight. What caused the controversy?
J Appl Physiol, March 1, 2006; 100(3): 1090 - 1090.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Panchev, V. S
Right arrow Articles by Pancheva, M. V
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Panchev, V. S
Right arrow Articles by Pancheva, M. V

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the American Physiological Society.