It is aimed to examine the potential benefits and effects of the use of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for sporting purposes on recovery, fatigue, and sportive performance level.
In this study, 90 people between the ages of 18-23 were participated. They were randomly divided into three groups as bilateral sham, unilateral left, and bilateral VNS. A 4-day protocol was applied to the participants. Cycling exercise was performed with maximum performance for 30 min under the same watt load. Pulse, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, distance, pain, fatigue, lactic acid level, and autonomic nervous system were evaluated.
Within the groups, there was a statistically significant difference between the data (p < .05) except for the distance covered parameter. When we compare the groups, in addition to the distance traveled in all groups, there is no statistically significant difference in the 1st day 1st measurement and 2nd measurement data of all parameters (p > .05 When we compared the data according to days, there was a statistically significant difference between bilateral stimulation (BS) and unilateral stimulation, only pain and fatigue levels (p < .05).
In our study, we saw that BS application gave positive results in reducing pain and fatigue due to cycling exercise compared to other applications. Similar results were obtained when we evaluated the data on a daily basis. We believe that VNS will be beneficial in reducing pain and fatigue, especially during and after the competition halftime.

The aim of the study was to compare the responses of pulmonary (V˙O2pulm) and muscle (V˙O2musc) oxygen uptake kinetics before (PRE) and after (POST) six weeks of endurance exercise training.
Nine untrained individuals performed pseudo-random binary sequences work rate changes between 30W and 80W at PRE and POST training intervention. Heart rate (HR) and V˙O2pulm were measured beat-to-beat and breath-by-breath, respectively. V˙O2musc was estimated applying the approach of Hoffmann et al. (Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 1745-1754, 2013).
Maximal oxygen uptake showed significant increases from PRE (3.2±0.3Lmin-1) to POST (3.7±0.2Lmin-1; p<0.05). For HR, V˙O2pulm and V˙O2musc kinetics no significant changes from PRE to POST training intervention were observed (p>0.05).
Discrepancies in the adaptations of the involved exercise induced physiological systems seem to be responsible for the observed significant alterations in maximal V˙O2 after six weeks of the training intervention in contrast to no changes in the kinetics responses.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the immediate effects of smoking on cardiorespiratory responses to dynamic arm and leg exercises.
METHODS: This randomized crossover study recruited 14 college students. Each participant underwent two sets of arm-cranking (AC) and leg-cycling (LC) exercise tests. The testing sequences of the control trial (participants refrained from smoking for 8 h before testing) and the experimental trial (participants smoked two cigarettes immediately before testing) were randomly chosen. We observed immediate changes in pulmonary function and heart rate variability after smoking and before the exercise test. The participants then underwent graded exercise tests of their arms and legs until reaching exhaustion. We compared the peak work achieved and time to exhaustion during the exercise tests with various cardiorespiratory indices [i.e., heart rate, oxygen consumption (VO2), minute ventilation (VE)]. The differences between the smoking and control trials were calculated using paired t-tests. For the exercise test periods, VO2, heart rate, and VE values were calculated at every 10% increment of the maximal effort time. The main effects of the time and trial, as well as their trial-by-time (4 × 10) interaction effects on the outcome measures, were investigated using repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis.
RESULTS: 5 min after smoking, the participants exhibited reduced forced vital capacities and forced expiratory volumes in the first second (P < 0.05), in addition to elevated resting heart rates (P < 0.001). The high-frequency, low-frequency, and the total power of the heart rate variability were also reduced (P < 0.05) at rest. For the exercise test periods, smoking reduced the time to exhaustion (P = 0.005) and the ventilatory threshold (P < 0.05) in the LC tests, whereas no significant effects were observed in the AC tests. A trend analysis revealed a significant trial-by-time interaction effect for heart rate, VO2, and VE during the graded exercise test (all P < 0.001). Lower VO2 and VE levels were exhibited in the exercise response of the smoking trial than in those of the control LC trials, whereas no discernable inter-trial difference was observed in the AC trials. Moreover, the differences in heart rate and VE response between the LC and AC exercises were significantly smaller after the participants smoked.
CONCLUSIONS: This study verified that smoking significantly decreased performance and cardiorespiratory responses to leg exercises. However, the negative effects of smoking on arm exercise performance were not as pronounced.