J Kang1, E C Chaloupka, M A Mastrangelo, J Angelucci. 1. Exercise Science Research Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA. kang@rowan.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to compare cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses to upper body exercise on an arm ergometer (AE) and a modified leg ergometer (LE). METHODS: Seventeen male and seven female subjects completed two experimental trials. During each trial, the subjects performed two successive 8-min steady-state arm crank exercises on either an AE or an LE. The crank frequency was kept constant at 50 rev x min(-1) during all exercise bouts. The two power outputs selected were 50 and 75 W for male subjects and 25 and 50 W for female subjects. To achieve these power outputs, the brake resistance was set at 1, 2, and 3 kg at a power output of 25, 50, and 75 W, respectively, for the AE and 0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg at a power output of 25, 50, and 75 W, respectively, for the LE. Oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), expired ventilation (VE), gross efficiency (GE), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured every minute during the last 2 min of each exercise bout. RESULTS: In male subjects, VO2, HR, RER, VE, and RPE were higher (P < 0.05), whereas GE was lower (P < 0.05) during arm crank exercise on an AE than an LE at power outputs of 50 and 70 W. In female subjects, similar differences in these variables between the two ergometers were also observed when exercise was performed at 50 W. However, VO2, RER, VE, and GE did not differ between the two ergometers when exercise was performed at 25 W. CONCLUSIONS: Upper body exercise elicits greater cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses on an AE than an LE at the same power output when power output is computed according to the manufacturer's instructions.
PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to compare cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses to upper body exercise on an arm ergometer (AE) and a modified leg ergometer (LE). METHODS: Seventeen male and seven female subjects completed two experimental trials. During each trial, the subjects performed two successive 8-min steady-state arm crank exercises on either an AE or an LE. The crank frequency was kept constant at 50 rev x min(-1) during all exercise bouts. The two power outputs selected were 50 and 75 W for male subjects and 25 and 50 W for female subjects. To achieve these power outputs, the brake resistance was set at 1, 2, and 3 kg at a power output of 25, 50, and 75 W, respectively, for the AE and 0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg at a power output of 25, 50, and 75 W, respectively, for the LE. Oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), expired ventilation (VE), gross efficiency (GE), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured every minute during the last 2 min of each exercise bout. RESULTS: In male subjects, VO2, HR, RER, VE, and RPE were higher (P < 0.05), whereas GE was lower (P < 0.05) during arm crank exercise on an AE than an LE at power outputs of 50 and 70 W. In female subjects, similar differences in these variables between the two ergometers were also observed when exercise was performed at 50 W. However, VO2, RER, VE, and GE did not differ between the two ergometers when exercise was performed at 25 W. CONCLUSIONS: Upper body exercise elicits greater cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses on an AE than an LE at the same power output when power output is computed according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Authors: Tiago M Barbosa; Daniel A Marinho; Victor M Reis; António J Silva; José A Bragada Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Carl M Maresh; Bülent Sökmen; William J Kraemer; Jay R Hoffman; Greig Watson; Daniel A Judelson; Catherine L Gabaree-Boulant; Michael R Deschenes; Jaci L Vanheest; Lawrence E Armstrong Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2006-05-10 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: C L Lafortuna; S Chiavaroli; F Rastelli; M De Angelis; F Agosti; A Patrizi; A Sartorio Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 4.256