| Literature DB >> 29123485 |
Liam P Kelly1, Augustine J Devasahayam1, Arthur R Chaves1, Elizabeth M Wallack1, Jason McCarthy1, Fabien A Basset2, Michelle Ploughman1.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether stroke survivors could maintain workloads during functional task practice that can reach moderate levels of cardiometabolic stress (i.e., ≥40% oxygen uptake reserve ([Formula: see text]O2R) for ≥20 min) without the use of ergometer-based exercise. Design: Cross-sectional study using convenience sampling. Setting: Research laboratory in a tertiary rehabilitation hospital. Participants: Chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors (>6-months) who could provide consent and walk with or without assistance. Intervention: A single bout of intermittent functional training (IFT). The IFT protocol lasted 30 min and involved performing impairment specific multi-joint task-oriented movements structured into circuits lasting ~3 min and allowing 30-45 s recovery between circuits. The aim was to achieve an average heart rate (HR) 30-50 beats above resting without using traditional ergometer-based aerobic exercise. Outcome measures: Attainment of indicators for moderate intensity aerobic exercise. Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2), carbon dioxide production ([Formula: see text]CO2), and HR were recorded throughout the 30 min IFT protocol. Values were reported as percentage of [Formula: see text]O2R, HR reserve (HRR) and HRR calculated from predicted maximum HR (HRRpred), which were determined from a prior maximal graded exercise test.Entities:
Keywords: aerobic exercise; cardiometabolic stress; physical exertion; physical therapy modalities; stroke rehabilitation
Year: 2017 PMID: 29123485 PMCID: PMC5662635 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00809
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1Illustration of a typical intermittent functional training (IFT) session. Participants completed 3 circuits of 3 functional tasks. Each circuit was completed twice, with 30–45 s recovery between sets, before moving onto the next circuit. Circuit 1: (A) sit-to-stand (15–20 reps), (B) lying-to-sit (7/side), and (C) hip bridge (15–20 reps). Circuit 2: (A) step-up-to-stand (10–15 reps), (B) alternate 1-leg balance (5 sec hold 7/leg), (C) alternate-arm and alternate-leg (5 sec hold 7/side). Circuit 3: (A) prone-to-standing (15–20 reps), (B) high-knees (15–20 reps), (C) tandem walking (10 m). Participants were instructed to move from one exercise to the next with minimal rest. ❤ = 15–30 bpm above resting, ❤❤ = 30–45 bpm above resting, and ❤❤❤ = 45–60 bpm above resting.
Participant characteristics.
| 01 | 61 | M | 119 | 35.9 | Ischemic | 24 | 1 | 13 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 02 | 43 | M | 64 | 20.4 | Ischemic | 27 | 7 | 4 | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ |
| 03 | 62 | M | 82 | 26.2 | Ischemic | 33 | 4 | 7 | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| 04 | 69 | M | 85 | 27.2 | Ischemic | 26 | 1 | 13 | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ |
| 05 | 49 | F | 85 | 30.5 | Hemorrhagic | 12 | 5 | 9 | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ |
| 06 | 79 | F | 61 | 28.0 | Ischemic | 24 | 0 | 12 | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| 07 | 76 | M | 79 | 25.1 | Ischemic | 131 | 3 | 11 | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ |
| 08 | 67 | M | 90 | 29.8 | Ischemic | 32 | 3 | 12 | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ |
| 09 | 59 | F | 65 | 23.0 | Hemorrhagic | 40 | 2 | 9 | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ |
| 10 | 81 | M | 82 | 27.4 | Hemorrhagic | 31 | 3 | 12 | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ |
NIHSS, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.
Physiological responses recorded during graded exercise test and calculated minimum threshold criteria.
| 01 | 91 | 393 | 2,950 | 1.01 | 24.7 | 150 | 161 | 1,415 | 115 | 119 |
| 02 | 80 | 279 | 1,640 | 1.08 | 24.5 | 185 | 173 | 823 | 122 | 117 |
| 03 | 66 | 410 | 2,570 | 1.11 | 29.4 | 172 | 160 | 1,274 | 108 | 104 |
| 04 | 80 | 303 | 1,760 | 1.07 | 20.2 | 168 | 154 | 886 | 115 | 110 |
| 05 | 94 | 320 | 1,190 | 1.03 | 14.0 | 171 | 170 | 668 | 125 | 124 |
| 06 | 60 | 213 | 840 | 0.91 | 13.9 | 122 | 147 | 464 | 85 | 95 |
| 07 | 63 | 124 | 1,670 | 1.11 | 21.5 | 148 | 149 | 742 | 97 | 97 |
| 08 | 62 | 306 | 1,710 | 1.13 | 18.9 | 138 | 156 | 868 | 92 | 100 |
| 09 | 61 | 243 | 1,670 | 1.11 | 25.1 | 137 | 162 | 814 | 91 | 101 |
| 10 | 54 | 462 | 1,150 | 1.02 | 14.1 | 98 | 107 | 737 | 72 | 75 |
HR, heart rate; .
Participant responses to intermittent functional training excluding rest time.
| 01 | 21:05 | 115 | 1,664 | 4.23 | Yes | No | Yes |
| 02 | 23.43 | 125 | 954 | 4.28 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 03 | 23:03 | 109 | 1,240 | 4.02 | Yes | Yes | No |
| 04 | 21:11 | 126 | 710 | 2.36 | Yes | Yes | No |
| 05 | 29:23 | 91 | 922 | 4.07 | No | No | Yes |
| 06 | 19:28 | 149 | 1,309 | 4.32 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 07 | 25:13 | 118 | 1,363 | 5.00 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 08 | 19:58 | 95 | 833 | 3.89 | No | Yes | No |
| 09 | 24:50 | 121 | 1,212 | 3.84 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10 | 19:50 | 81 | 1,003 | 3.50 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
IFT, intermittent functional training; HR, heart rate; .
Figure 2Cardiometabolic responses to intermittent functional training. Box and whisker plot displaying 5th–95th percentile, mean and standard deviation. *Significantly different from pre-exercise resting p < 0.05.
Figure 3Mean response during intermittent functional training based on oxygen uptake reserve (O2R), heart rate reserve (HRR), and HRR using age predicted maximal heart rate (HRRpred). Dashed line indicates minimum threshold required to be considered moderate intensity aerobic exercise. *p < 0.05 compared to 40% threshold.
Figure 4Metabolic equivalent (MET) of functional tasks used during intermittent functional training.