Santiago Lorenzo1, Tony G Babb2. 1. Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: TonyBabb@TexasHealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. METHODS: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38% ± 5% body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39% ± 5% body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. RESULTS: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43% ± 6% vs 40% ± 9% total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21% ± 4% vs 21% ± 4% TLC), or FVC (111% ± 13% vs 104% ± 15% predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV1 (111% ± 13% vs 99% ± 11% predicted), TLC (106% ± 14% vs 94% ± 7% predicted), peak expiratory flow (123% ± 14% vs 106% ± 13% predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128% ± 15% vs 106% ± 13% predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129% ± 16% vs 86% ± 15% predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76 L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. CONCLUSION: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.
BACKGROUND: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. METHODS: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38% ± 5% body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39% ± 5% body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. RESULTS: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43% ± 6% vs 40% ± 9% total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21% ± 4% vs 21% ± 4% TLC), or FVC (111% ± 13% vs 104% ± 15% predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV1 (111% ± 13% vs 99% ± 11% predicted), TLC (106% ± 14% vs 94% ± 7% predicted), peak expiratory flow (123% ± 14% vs 106% ± 13% predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128% ± 15% vs 106% ± 13% predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129% ± 16% vs 86% ± 15% predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76 L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. CONCLUSION: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.
Authors: Maria Theresa D Opina; Tina E Brinkley; Michelle Gordon; Mary F Lyles; Barbara J Nicklas Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Bryce N Balmain; Quinn M Halverson; Andrew R Tomlinson; Timothy Edwards; Matthew S Ganio; Tony G Babb Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Bryce N Balmain; Kyle Weinstein; Vipa Bernhardt; Rubria Marines-Price; Andrew R Tomlinson; Tony G Babb Journal: Respir Physiol Neurobiol Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Matthew D Spencer; Bryce N Balmain; Vipa Bernhardt; Daniel P Wilhite; Tony G Babb Journal: Respir Physiol Neurobiol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 1.931