Abstract

PurposeTo compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency between upper-body poling (UBP) and arm crank ergometry (ACE) in able-bodied (AB) and paraplegic participants (PARA).MethodsSeven PARA and eleven AB upper-body trained participants performed four 5-min submaximal stages, and an incremental test to exhaustion in UBP and ACE. VO2peak was the highest 30-s average during the incremental test. Metabolic rate (joule/second = watt) at fixed power outputs of 40, 60, and 80 W was estimated using linear regression analysis on the original power-output-metabolic-rate data and used to compare exercise efficiency between exercise modes and groups.ResultsVO2peak did not significantly differ between UBP and ACE (p = 0.101), although peak power output was 19% lower in UBP (p < 0.001). Metabolic rate at fixed power outputs was 24% higher in UBP compared to ACE (p < 0.001), i.e., exercise efficiency was lower in UBP. PARA had 24% lower VO2peak compared to AB (p = 0.010), although there were no significant differences in peak power output between PARA and AB (p = 0.209).ConclusionsIn upper-body-trained PARA and AB participants, VO2peak did not differ between UBP and ACE, indicating that these two test modes tax the cardiovascular system similarly when the upper body is restricted. As such, the 19% lower peak power output in UBP compared to ACE may be explained by the coinciding lower efficiency.

Highlights

  • Peak oxygen uptake (­VO2peak) and exercise efficiency are key factors for endurance performance

  • During upper-body poling (UBP), when group was adjusted for, participants produced 19% lower peak power output (PO) compared to arm crank ergometry (ACE) (p < 0.001) but displayed 0.08 higher respiratory exchange ratio (RER) (p < 0.001)

  • We found no difference in ­VO2peak between UBP and ACE, which indicates that—with the upper-body restricted—the cardiorespiratory system is taxed in both exercise modes when working until voluntary exhaustion

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peak oxygen uptake (­VO2peak) and exercise efficiency are key factors for endurance performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology (2018) 118:1857–1867 para biathletes, the upper-body poling (UBP) movement is the most sport specific. It has not yet been investigated whether ­VO2peak and efficiency differ between ACE and UBP and if possible differences are caused by the respective movement of the arms and/or due to different use of the trunk. Previous studies have shown that wheelchair ergometry is less efficient than ACE (Glaser et al 1980; Hintzy et al 2002; Mukherjee and Samanta 2001) This is likely caused by higher coordinative demands of using the discontinuous movement and by production of power during a shorter portion of each cycle in the wheelchair ergometry mode (Mukherjee and Samanta 2001)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call