Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 118, Issue 5, pp 1011–1019 | Cite as

Cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses to self-regulated and imposed submaximal arm–leg ergometry

  • Mathew Hill
  • Christopher Talbot
  • Michael Puddiford
  • Michael Price
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses to exercise using self-regulated and imposed power outputs distributed between the arms and legs.

Methods

Ten males (age 21.7 ± 3.4 years) initially undertook incremental arm-crank ergometry (ACE) and cycle ergometry (CYC) tests to volitional exhaustion to determine peak power output (Wpeak). Two subsequent tests involved 20-min combined arm–leg ergometry (ALE) trials, using imposed and self-regulated protocols, both of which aimed to elicit an exercising heart rate of 160 beats min−1. During the imposed trial, arm and leg intensity were set at 40% of each ergometer-specific Wpeak. During the self-regulated trial, participants were asked to self-regulate cadence and resistance to achieve the target heart rate. Heart rate (HR), oxygen uptake (\(\dot {V}{{\text{O}}_{\text{2}}}\)), pulmonary ventilation (\({\dot {V}_{\text{E}}}\)), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded continuously.

Results

As expected, there were no differences between imposed and self-regulated trials for HR, \(\dot {V}{{\text{O}}_{\text{2}}}\), and \({\dot {V}_{\text{E}}}\) (all P ≥ 0.05). However, central RPE and local RPE for the arms were lower during self-regulated compared imposed trials (P ≤ 0.05). Lower RPE during the self-regulated trial was related to preferential adjustments in how the arms (33 ± 5% Wpeak) and legs (46 ± 5% Wpeak) contributed to the exercise intensity.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that despite similar metabolic and cardiovascular strain elicited by imposed and self-regulated ALE, the latter was perceived to be less strenuous, which is related to participants doing more work with the legs and less work with the arms to achieve the target intensity.

Keywords

Combined arm–leg ergometer Arm-cranking Concurrent exercise Whole-body exercise Energy expenditure 

Abbreviations

ALE

Arm–leg ergometry

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

ACE

Arm-crank ergometry

CYC

Cycle ergometry

d

Cohen’s d effect sizes

HR

Heart rate

RER

Respiratory exchange ratio

RPEC

Central rating of perceived exertion

RPEARMS

Ratings of perceived exertion for arm musculature

RPELEGS

Ratings of perceived exertion for leg musculature

\({\dot {V}_{\text{E}}}\)

Pulmonary ventilation

\(\dot {V}{{\text{O}}_{\text{2}}}\)

Oxygen uptake

\(\dot {V}{{\text{O}}_{{\text{2peak}}}}\)

Peak oxygen uptake

Wpeak

Peak power output

Notes

Author contribution statement

MH, MPr, and CT conceived and designed research. MH, CT, and MPu conducted experiments. MH wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

References

  1. Astrand PO, Saltin B (1961) Maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate in various types of muscular activity. J Appl Physiol 16(6):977–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergh U, Kanstrup IL, Ekblom B (1976) Maximal oxygen uptake during exercise with various combinations of arm and leg work. J Appl Physiol 41(2):191–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg GA (1982) Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14(5):377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckley J, Eston R (2006) Ratings of perceived exertion. In: Winter ME, Jones AM, Davison RR, Bromley PD, Mercer T (eds) Sport and exercise physiology testing guidelines. Sport and exercise physiology testing guidelines: the British association of sport and exercise sciences guide, vol I: sport testing. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Eston RG, Brodie DA (1986) Responses to arm and leg ergometry. Br J Sports Med 20(1):4–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Gleser MA, Horstman DH, Mello RP (1974) The effect on VO2 max of adding arm work to maximal leg work. Med Sci Sports Exerc 6(2):104–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gutin B, Ang KE, Torrey K (1988) Cardiorespiratory and subjective responses to incremental and constant load ergometry with arms and legs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69(7):510–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hagan RD, Gettman LR, Upton SJ, Duncan JJ, Cummings JM (1983) Cardiorespiratory responses to arm, leg, and combined arm and leg work on an air-braked ergometer. J Cardiac Rehabil 3:689–695Google Scholar
  9. Hagerman FC, Connors MC, Gault JA, Hagerman GR, Polinski WJ (1978) Energy expenditure during simulated rowing. J Appl Physiol 45(1):87–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Haile L, Gallagher M, Robertson RJ (2015) Self-selected versus imposed exercise intensities. In: Perceived exertion laboratory manual. Springer, New York, pp 163–177Google Scholar
  11. Hill MW, Goss-Sampson M, Duncan MJ, Price MJ (2014) The effects of maximal and submaximal arm crank ergometry and cycle ergometry on postural sway. Eur J Sport Sci 14(8):782–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman MD, Kassay KM, Zeni AI, Clifford PS (1996) Does the amount of exercising muscle alter the aerobic demand of dynamic exercise? Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74(6):541–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kravitz L, Robergs RA, Heyward VH, Wagner DR, Powers K (1997) Exercise mode and gender comparisons of energy expenditure at self-selected intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29(8):1028–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mier CM, Feito Y (2006) Metabolic cost of stride rate, resistance, and combined use of arms and legs on the elliptical trainer. Res Q Exerc Sport 77(4):507–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagle FJ, Richie JP, Giese MD (1984) VO2max responses in separate and combined arm and leg air-braked ergometer exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16(6):563–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Parfitt G, Rose EA, Burgess WM (2006) The psychological and physiological responses of sedentary individuals to prescribed and preferred intensity exercise. Br J Health Psychol 11:39–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reybrouck T, Heigenhauser GF, Faulkner JA (1975) Limitations to maximum oxygen uptake in arms, leg, and combined arm-leg ergometry. J Appl Physiol 38(5):774–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sakamoto M, Tazoe T, Nakajima T, Endoh T, Shiozawa S, Komiyama T (2007) Voluntary changes in leg cadence modulate arm cadence during simultaneous arm and leg cycling. Exp Brain Res 176(1):188–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Sakamoto M, Tazoe T, Nakajima T, Endoh T, Komiyama T (2014) Leg automaticity is stronger than arm automaticity during simultaneous arm and leg cycling. Neurosci Let 564:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sawka MN (1986) Physiology of upper body exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 14(1):175–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Secher NH, Ruberg-Larsen N, Binkhorst RA, Bonde-Petersen F (1974) Maximal oxygen uptake during arm cranking and combined arm plus leg exercise. J Appl Physiol 36(5):515–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Secher NH, Clausen JP, Klausen K, Noer I, Trap-Jensen J (1977) Central and regional circulatory effects of adding arm exercise to leg exercise. Acta Physiol 100(3):288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stenberg J, Astrand P-O, Ekblom B, Royce J, Saltin B (1967) Hemodynamic responses to work with different muscle groups, sitting and supine. J Appl Physiol 22:61–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeni AI, Hoffman MD, Clifford PS (1996) Energy expenditure with indoor exercise machines. Jama 275(18):1424–1427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathew Hill
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher Talbot
    • 2
  • Michael Puddiford
    • 2
  • Michael Price
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  2. 2.Ageing Research CentreUniversity of NorthamptonNorthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations