Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 119, Issue 9, pp 2025–2031 | Cite as

Effects of different increments in workload and duration on peak physiological responses during seated upper-body poling

  • Berit BrurokEmail author
  • Mirjam Mellema
  • Øyvind Sandbakk
  • Julia Kathrin Baumgart
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the effects of test protocols with different increments in workload and duration on peak oxygen uptake (\({\dot{V}}\)O2peak), and related physiological parameters during seated upper-body poling (UBP).

Methods

Thirteen upper-body trained, male individuals completed four UBP test protocols with increments in workload until volitional exhaustion in a counterbalanced order: 20 W increase/every 30 s, 20 W/60 s, 10 W/30 s and 10 W/60 s. Cardio-respiratory parameters and power output were measured throughout the duration of each test. Peak blood lactate concentration (bLapeak) was measured after each test.

Results

The mixed model analysis revealed no overall effect of test protocol on \({\dot{V}}\)O2peak, peak minute ventilation (VEpeak), peak heart rate (HRpeak), bLapeak (all p ≥ 0.350), whereas an overall effect of test protocol was found on peak power output (POpeak) (p = 0.0001), respiratory exchange ratio (RER) (p = 0.024) and test duration (p < 0.001). There was no difference in POpeak between the 20 W/60 s (175 ± 25 W) and 10 W/30 s test (169 ± 27 W; p = 0.092), whereas POpeak was lower in the 10 W/60 s test (152 ± 21 W) and higher in the 20 W/30 s test (189 ± 30 W) compared to the other tests (all p = 0.001). In addition, RER was 9.9% higher in the 20 W/30 s compared to the 10 W/60 s test protocol (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

The UBP test protocols with different increments in workload and duration did not influence \({\dot{V}}\)O2peak, and can therefore be used interchangeably when \({\dot{V}}\)O2peak is the primary outcome. However, POpeak and RER depend upon the test protocol applied and the UBP test protocols can, therefore, not be used interchangeably when the latter is the primary outcome parameter.

Keywords

Upper-body exercise Exercise test protocol Aerobic capacity 

Abbreviations

ACE

Arm crank ergometry

bLapeak

Peak blood lactate

HRpeak

Peak heart rate

POpeak

Peak power output

RER

Respiratory exchange ratio

RPE

Ratings of perceived exertion

UBP

Upper-body poling

\({\dot{V}}\)CO2

Carbon dioxide production

VE

minute ventilation

\({\dot{V}}\)O2peak

Peak oxygen uptake

W

Watt

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful and acknowledge the effort from the participant volunteers of the present study. The laboratory equipment was provided by NeXt Move, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). NeXt Move is funded by the Faculty of Medicine at NTNU and Central Norway Regional Health Authority.

Author contributions

JKB, ØS and BB conceived and designed the research. MM and BB conducted the data collection. BB and JKB analysed the data. BB wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures in the present study are in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki declaration. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

421_2019_4189_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (830 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PPTX 829 kb)
421_2019_4189_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (54 kb)
Supplementary file2 (XLSX 54 kb)

References

  1. Bar-Or O, Zwiren LD (1975) Maximal oxygen consumption test during arm exercise-reliability and validity. J Appl Physiol 38:424–426.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1975.38.3.424 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgart JK, Skovereng K, Sandbakk Ø (2017) Comparison of peak oxygen uptake and test-retest reliability of physiological parameters between closed-end and incremental upper-body poling tests. Front Physiol 8:857.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00857 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgart JK, Gürtler L, Ettema G, Sandbakk Ø (2018) Comparison of peak oxygen uptake and exercise efficiency between upper-body poling and arm crank ergometry in trained paraplegic and able-bodied participants. Eur J Appl Physiol 118:1857–1867.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-018-3912-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley DJ, McNaughton LR (2003) Comparison of Wpeak, VO2peak and the ventilation threshold from two different incremental exercise tests: relationship to endurance performance. J Sci Med Sport 6:422–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(03)80268-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhambhani YN, Eriksson P, Steadward RD (1991) Reliability of peak physiological responses during wheelchair ergometry in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:559–562.  https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:000399939190036I CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop D, Jenkins DG, Mackinnon LT (1998) The effect of stage duration on the calculation of peak V̇O2 during cycle ergometry. J Sci Med Sport 1:171–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(98)80012-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borg GAV (1982) Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14:377–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro RRT, Pedrosa S, Chabalgoity F, Sousa EB, Nobrega ACL (2010) The influence of a fast ramp rate on peak cardiopulmonary parameters during arm crank ergometry. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 30:420–425.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-097X.2010.00958.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis JA, Whipp BJ, Lamarra N, Huntsman DJ, Frank MH, Wasserman K (1982) Effect of ramp slope on determination of aerobic parameters from the ramp exercise test. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14:339–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Foss Ø, Hallén J (2005) Validity and stability of a computerized metabolic system with mixing chamber. Int J Sports Med 26:569–575.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-821317 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauthier C, Arel J, Brosseau R, Hicks AL, Gagnon DH (2017a) Reliability and minimal detectable change of a new treadmill-based progressive workload incremental test to measure cardiorespiratory fitness in manual wheelchair users. J Spinal Cord Med 40:759–767.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2017.1369213 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gauthier C, Grangeon M, Ananos L, Brosseau R, Gagnon DH (2017b) Quantifying cardiorespiratory responses resulting from speed and slope increments during motorized treadmill propulsion among manual wheelchair users. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 60:281–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.02.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goosey-Tolfrey V, Castle P, Webborn N, Abel T (2006) Aerobic capacity and peak power output of elite quadriplegic games players. Br J Sports Med 40:684–687.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.026815 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchinson MJ, Paulson TAW, Eston R, Goosey-Tolfrey VL (2017) Assessment of peak oxygen uptake during handcycling: test–retest reliability and comparison of a ramp-incremented and perceptually-regulated exercise test. PLoS ONE 12:e0181008.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Koga S, Shiojiri T, Shibasaki M, Fukuba Y, Fukuoka Y, Kondo N (1996) Kinetics of oxygen uptake and cardiac output at onset of arm exercise. Respir Physiol 103:195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-5687(95)00082-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Leicht AS, Sealey RM, Sinclair WH (2009) The reliability of VO2peak determination in healthy females during an incremental arm ergometry test. Int J Sports Med 30:509–515.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202351 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Leicht CA, Tolfrey K, Lenton JP, Bishop NC, Goosey-Tolfrey VL (2013) The verification phase and reliability of physiological parameters in peak testing of elite wheelchair athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 113:337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2441-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pelletier CA, Jones G, Latimer-Cheung AE, Warburton DE, Hicks AL (2013) Aerobic capacity, orthostatic tolerance, and exercise perceptions at discharge from inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94:2013–2019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Price MJ, Campbell IG (1997) Determination of peak oxygen uptake during upper body exercise. Ergonomics 40:491–499.  https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397188116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Reilly T, Atkinson G, Edwards B, Waterhouse J, Farrelly K, Fairhurst E (2007) Diurnal variation in temperature, mental and physical performance, and tasks specifically related to football (soccer). Chronobiol Int 24:507–519.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07420520701420709 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sawka MN, Foley ME, Pimental NA, Toner MM, Pandolf KB (1983) Determination of maximal aerobic power during upper-body exercise. J Appl Physiol 54:113–117.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1983.54.1.113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheuermann BW, Tripse McConnell JH, Barstow TJ (2002) EMG and oxygen uptake responses during slow and fast ramp exercise in humans. Exp Physiol 87:91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1113/eph8702246 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheperd RJ, Vandewalle V, Gil E, Bouhlel E, Monod H (1992) Respiratory, muscular, and overall perceptions of effort: the influence of hypoxia and muscle mass. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24:556–567Google Scholar
  24. Smith PM, Price MJ, Doherty M (2001) The influence of crank rate on peak oxygen consumption during arm crank ergometry. J Sports Sci 19:955–960.  https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101317108453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith PM, Doherty M, Drake DM, Price J (2004) The influence of step and ramp type protocols on the attainment of peak physiological responses during arm crank ergometry. Int J Sports Med 25:616–621.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-817880 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith PM, Amaral I, Doherty M, Price MJ, Jones AM (2006) The influence of ramp rate on VO2peak and “excess” VO2 during arm crank ergometry. Int J Sports Med 27:610–616.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-865857 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker R, Powers S, Stuart MK (1986) Peak oxygen uptake in arm ergometry: effects of testing protocol. Br J Sports Med 20:25–26.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.20.1.25 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Washburn RA, Seals DR (1983) Comparison of continuous and discontinuous protocols for the determination of peak oxygen uptake in arm cranking. Eur J Appl Physiol 51:3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00952531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Elite Sports Research, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Technology, Art and Design, Faculty of Mechanical, Electronics and Chemical EngineeringOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Clinic for Spinal Cord InjuriesSt. Olavs University HospitalTrondheimNorway
  4. 4.Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life SciencesMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations