| Literature DB >> 28303944 |
Stephanie Windisch1, Wolfgang Seiberl1, Ansgar Schwirtz1, Daniel Hahn2,3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify the physical demands of a simulated firefighting circuit and to establish the relationship between job performance and endurance and strength fitness measurements. On four separate days 41 professional firefighters (39 ± 9 yr, 179.6 ± 2.3 cm, 84.4 ± 9.2 kg, BMI 26.1 ± 2.8 kg/m2) performed treadmill testing, fitness testing (strength, balance and flexibility) and a simulated firefighting exercise. The firefighting exercise included ladder climbing (20 m), treadmill walking (200 m), pulling a wire rope hoist (15 times) and crawling an orientation section (50 m). Firefighting performance during the simulated exercise was evaluated by a simple time-strain-air depletion model (TSA) taking the sum of z-transformed parameters of time to finish the exercise, strain in terms of mean heart rate, and air depletion from the breathing apparatus. Multiple regression analysis based on the TSA-model served for the identification of the physiological determinants most relevant for professional firefighting. Three main factors with great influence on firefighting performance were identified (70.1% of total explained variance): VO2peak, the time firefighter exercised below their individual ventilatory threshold and mean breathing frequency. Based on the identified main factors influencing firefighting performance we recommend a periodic preventive health screening for incumbents to monitor peak VO2 and individual ventilatory threshold.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28303944 PMCID: PMC5356010 DOI: 10.1038/srep44590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Description of balance, flexibility, strength and muscular endurance testing.
| Test | Description |
|---|---|
| Subjects had to show their one-leg standing balance with eyes closed for 15 seconds. Subjects stand on the supporting leg with the free leg raised and bent 90°. Assessment scheme: 2 points – Subject remained unmoving for 15 s. 1 point – Subject performed the exercise with compensation movements. 0 points – The supporting leg leaves its position (jumping as compensation movement) or the free leg was moved back to the ground or eyes were opened. | |
| This test, performed on a traditional 32.4-cm-high and 53.3-cm-long box, was used to obtain flexibility assessments for lower back and hamstring muscles. The subject sat on the floor with its legs fully extended with the bottom of the bare feet against the box. The subject placed one hand on top of the other, slowly bended forward and reached along the top of the ruler as far as possible holding the stretch for two seconds. The distance reached by the subject’s finger tips (cm) was recorded. The test was performed three times. The average of the three distances were calculated | |
| Subjects placed their toes behind the takeoff line and were instructed to jump as far as possible forward with arm swing being allowed. The best jumping distance (cm) out of three trials was registered | |
| Maximum strength was obtained using a predictive one-repetition (1-RM) formula as described by Brzycki | |
| The grip size of the force dynamometer (Jamar: Lafayette Instrument, Lafayette USA) was individually adjusted to fit the proximal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. In a standing position, with the elbow bent 90 degrees alongside the body, the subjects squeezed the dynamometer as hard as they could. The best of three trials on each hand was registered for the maximum (in kg) and the maximum values of both sides averaged | |
| The test was taken as the number of times the firefighter could perform push-ups with shoulder-width space between his hands at a rate of 30 lifts per minute | |
| The partial curl-ups test was used to measure muscular endurance of the abdominal muscle | |
| In a sitting upright position, subjects grasped two 10 kg dumbbells with a pronated grip, vertically pushed the attachment from chin level up to straight arms overhead, and then pulled back to the starting position. The test was taken as the number of times the firefighter could raise and lower the dumbbells in a seating position at a rate of 25 lifts per minute (metronome set at 50) | |
| In a seating position, the subjects grasped two 7.5 kg dumbbells with a pronated grip. The test was taken as the number of times the firefighter could row in a seating position by abducting arms (90°) in sagittal plane with two 10 kg dumbbells. The weight was lifted between the spina iliaca anterior superior and the chin at a rate of 30 full lifts per minute (metronome set at 60). The number of completed lifts was registered |
Aerobic fitness, muscular strength, flexibility and balance testing.
| Variable | Mean | ±SD |
|---|---|---|
| Treadmill total time to exhaustion (min) | 10.5 | 1.2 |
| VO2peak relative (ml/min/kg) | 45.0 | 6.0 |
| VO2peak absolute (l/min) | 3.75 | 0.43 |
| HFmax (bpm) | 181.2 | 11.1 |
| VE at VO2peak(l/min) | 126.5 | 29.4 |
| Leg press (one leg) kg | 125.5 | 31.6 |
| Hand grip (kg) | 58.7 | 7.1 |
| Partial-Curl Ups (reps to fatigue) | 82 | 34 |
| Push-Ups (reps to fatigue) | 29 | 16 |
| Shoulderpress (reps to fatigue) | 23 | 6 |
| Rowing (reps to fatigue) | 10.1 | 3.0 |
| Standing Long Jump (cm) | 219 | 22 |
| One-Leg Standing Score (eyes closed) | 1.1 | 0.5 |
| Sit and Reach (cm) | 9.3 | 3.3 |
Data are means ± SD. BMI: Body Mass Index, VO2peak: peak oxygen uptake during maximal treadmill running, HFmax: peak heart rate during maximal treadmill running, VE: Ventilation.
Figure 1Physiological responses during the REPE: Heart rate (HR), peak oxygen uptake absolute (VO2peak absolute) and relative (VO2peak relative), minute ventilation (VE), breathing volume (BV) and breathing frequency (BF) during ladder climb, treadmill walk, hoist, orientation section and the overall exercise.
Data are shown as means ± standard deviations (SD). *Significant difference between tasks (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Individual TSA-Scores of all 41 subjects classified into Outstanding, Above Average, Average, Below Average and Poor.
Multiple regression model (using Enter-Method) to predict optimal firefighting performance (TSA-score).
| Variable | β | Standard error β | β-weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | |||
| Relative VO2max | −0.193 | 0.038 | −0.508 |
| Time spent in Zone 1 | −0.037 | 0.010 | −0.389 |
| Mean breathing frequency (BF) during REPEspirometry | 0.122 | 0.043 | 0.256 |
Multiple r = 0.850, r2 = 0.723, corrected r2 = 0.701, standard error = 1.250.
Figure 3Relationship between the three main performance predictors and TSA-scores identified by multiple regression: relative VO2peak (left), time in Zone 1 (middle) and breathing frequency (right).
Characteristics of the firefighters with TSA-scores ranked into 5 categories: “Outstanding” (TSA < −2), “Above Average” (TSA −1 to −2), “Average” (TSA −0.99 to +0.99), “Below Average” (TSA 1 to 2), “Poor” (TSA > 2).
| REPEstandardTime (seconds) | REPEstandard HR(%HRmax) | REPEstandard AD(bar) | VO2peak(ml/min/kg) | Zone 1 (% time) | BF (reps/min) | Zone 2 (% time) | Zone 3 (% time) | BORG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outstanding | n = 6 | 664 ± 51 | 71.7 ± 0.04 | 126.7 ± 19.7 | 50.8 ± 4.4 | 55.8 ± 23.1 | 32.2 ± 7.5 | 44.2 ± 25 | 0.0 ± 0 | 12.0 ± 3 |
| Above Average | n = 9 | 757 ± 96 | 75.8 ± 0.05 | 147.2 ± 16.2 | 48.2 ± 3.9 | 37.0 ± 22.7 | 32.7 ± 5.2 | 62.4 ± 27 | 0.6 ± 2 | 12.0 ± 3 |
| Average | n = 13 | 799 ± 127 | 79.7 ± 0.06 | 157.3 ± 13.6 | 45.9 ± 4.7 | 19.0 ± 14.2 | 34.3 ± 3.5 | 68.9 ± 28 | 12.1 ± 21 | 12.0 ± 2 |
| Below Average | n = 6 | 830 ± 34 | 84.5 ± 0.04 | 178.3 ± 4.1 | 39.0 ± 5.3 | 4.1 ± 4.3 | 34.4 ± 5.5 | 87.4 ± 7 | 8.5 ± 7 | 14.1 ± 1 |
| Poor | n = 7 | 955 ± 117 | 84.7 ± 0.04 | 204.3 ± 21.5 | 40.4 ± 4.1 | 3.6 ± 8.8 | 36.8 ± 2.5 | 75.6 ± 22 | 20.8 ± 27 | 14.3 ± 2 |
Means ± SD are presented for REPE (Respiratory Protection Exercise) in terms of exercise completion time, heart rate (HR) and air depletion (AD), the three main performance predictors identified by regression - peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), physiological intensity zone 1 (Zone 1) and breathing frequency (BF) as well as additional parameters: physiological intensity zones (Zone 2, Zone 3), ratings of perceived exertion (BORG-scale).