| Literature DB >> 29424007 |
Ren-Jay Shei1,2, Robert F Chapman2, Allison H Gruber2, Timothy D Mickleborough2.
Abstract
Thoracic load carriage (LC) exercise impairs exercise performance compared to unloaded exercise, partially due to impaired respiratory mechanics. We investigated the effects of LC on exercise and diaphragmatic fatigue in a constant-load exercise task; and whether inspiratory muscle training (IMT) improved exercise capacity and diaphragmatic fatigue with LC. Twelve recreationally active males completed three separate running trials to exhaustion (Tlim ) at a fixed speed eliciting 70% of their V˙O2max . The first two trials were completed either unloaded (UL) or while carrying a 10 kg backpack (LC). Subjects then completed 6 weeks of either true IMT or placebo-IMT. Posttraining, subjects completed an additional LC trial identical to the pretraining LC trial. Exercise metabolic and ventilatory measures were recorded. Diaphragm fatigue was assessed as the difference between preexercise and postexercise twitch diaphragmatic pressure (Pdi, tw ), assessed by bilateral stimulation of the phrenic nerve with esophageal balloon-tipped catheters measuring intrathoracic pressures. Tlim was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) with LC compared with UL by 42.9 (29.1)% (1626.5 (866.7) sec and 2311.6 (1246.5) sec, respectively). The change in Pdi, tw from pre- to postexercise was significantly greater (P = 0.001) in LC (-13.9 (5.3)%) compared with UL (3.8 (6.5)%). Six weeks of IMT significantly improved Tlim compared to pretraining (P = 0.029, %Δ +29.3 (15.7)% IMT, -8.8 (27.2)% Placebo), but did not alter the magnitude of diaphragmatic fatigue following a run to exhaustion (P > 0.05). Minute ventilation and breathing mechanics were unchanged post-IMT (P > 0.05). Six weeks of flow-resistive IMT improved exercise capacity, but did not mitigate diaphragmatic fatigue following submaximal, constant-load running to volitional exhaustion with LC.Entities:
Keywords: Diaphragm fatigue; flow limitation; performance; respiratory muscles; ventilation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29424007 PMCID: PMC5805854 DOI: 10.14814/phy2.13558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Physiol Rep ISSN: 2051-817X
Subject characteristics (n = 12)
| Variable | Pooled | Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) | Placebo (PLA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 23.5 (5.3) | 23.3 (3.6) | 23.7 (7.0) |
| (Range) | (18–37) | (19–28) | (18–37) |
| Body mass (kg) | 72.7 (6.0) | 73.4 (3.5) | 72.0 (8.1) |
| Height (cm) | 179.7 (6.7) | 181.5 (7.8) | 177.9 (5.6) |
| Body mass index (kg·m2) | 22.5 (1.8) | 22.3 (1.3) | 22.7 (2.3) |
|
| 61.9 (6.0) | 62.0 (7.9) | 61.8 (4.0) |
|
| 4.5 (0.5) | 4.5 (0.5) | 4.4 (0.6) |
| Weekly activity (hours) | 9.2 (4.3) | 8.7 (1.8) | 9.7 (6.2) |
| Training compliance (%) | – | 92.6 (8.4) | 87.0 (9.7) |
O2max, maximal oxygen consumption. Data are given as mean(SD).
Running speed, ventilatory, and perceptual data at baseline
| Variable | LC | UL |
| %Δ | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Running Speed (km·hr−1) | 9.5 (1.1) | 11.4 (1.4) | <0.001 | 16.6 | −2.3 to −1.5 |
| At 8th minute of exercise | |||||
|
| 3.12 (0.38) | 3.12 (0.37) | 0.953 | – | −0.06 to +0.06 |
|
| 88.3 (14.2) | 82.9 (12.7) | 0.004 | 6.1 | +2.1 to +8.7 |
|
| 2.01 (0.4) | 2.20 (0.4) | 0.112 | – | −0.43 to +0.05 |
|
| 45 (5.5) | 39 (7.9) | 0.029 | 13.0 | +0.7 to +10.8 |
| EFL (%) | 26.4 (31.3) | 18.2 (23.2) | 0.239 | – | −6.3 to +22.8 |
| IRV (L) | 1.4 (0.6) | 1.5 (0.5) | 0.727 | – | −0.3 to +0.2 |
| (% FVC) | 27.2 (9.0) | 28.1 (8.7) | – | – | – |
| ERV (L) | 1.0 (0.5) | 1.3 (0.7) | 0.033 | −25.9 | −0.6 to −0.03 |
| (% FVC) | 18.0 (8.3) | 24.4 (12.1) | – | – | – |
| Ti/TTotal (%) | 51.4 (2.9) | 49.8 (3.7) | 0.084 | – | −0.3 to +3.5 |
| RPE | 13.2 (2.4) | 11.6 (2.5) | 0.002 | 12.0 | +0.7 to +2.5 |
| Dyspnea | 4.3 (1.6) | 3.4 (1.6) | 0.014 | 21.2 | +0.2 to +1.6 |
| At end‐exercise ( | |||||
| RPE | 15.8 (2.1) | 15.3 (2.3) | 0.096 | – | −0.1 to +0.9 |
| Dyspnea | 5.9 (1.6) | 5.5 (1.8) | 0.096 | – | −0.1 to +0.9 |
O2, absolute oxygen consumption; E, minute ventilation; V T, tidal volume; f b, breathing frequency; EFL, expiratory flow limitation; IRV, inspiratory reserve volume; ERV, expiratory reserve volume; Ti/TTotal, inspiratory duty cycle; RPE, ratings of perceived exertion.
Significantly different from UL, P < 0.05. Data are given as mean(SD).
Figure 1T lim (Panel A) and P di, tw (Panel B) data for LC and UL conditions at baseline. Data are given as mean(SD). *significantly different between LC and UL. T lim was 42.9(29.1)% shorter (P < 0.001, 95% CI: −990.4 to −379.9 sec) with thoracic LC (1626.5 (866.7) sec) compared to UL (2311.6 (1246.5) sec). The postexercise reduction in P di, tw was significantly greater in LC (−13.9 (5.3)%), but not in UL (−3.8 (6.5)%); P = 0.001, %Δ, +261.3; 95% CI: −14.7 to −5.3%.
Figure 2Pre‐ and Posttraining T lim for each group (open circles, IMT, open squares PLA). T lim (Panel B) and P di, tw (Panel C) data from pre‐ to postIMT. *significantly different from pre‐ to posttraining. T lim in the IMT group improved significantly more (median change 20.0%, range +9.9 to +45%; P = 0.046, 95% CI +3.7 to +65.1%) compared to the PLA group (median change −3.5%, range −56.6 to +20.6%).
Metabolic, ventilatory, and perceptual data
| Variable | IMT | PLA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretraining | Posttraining | Pretraining | Posttraining | |
| At 8th minute of exercise | ||||
|
| 3.15 (0.40) | 3.13 (0.42) | 3.08 (0.40) | 3.10 (0.41) |
|
| 91.0 (19.2) | 88.50 (18.4) | 85.7 (7.9) | 82.7 (8.6) |
|
| 2.12 (0.53) | 1.91 (0.33) | 1.90 (0.22) | 1.81 (0.30) |
|
| 44 (6.5) | 46 (6.6) | 45 (4.8) | 46 (4.5) |
| EFL (%) | 24.0 (18.2) | 21.0 (26.1) | 28.9 (42.6) | 29.9 (39.5) |
| IRV (L) | 1.6 (0.7) | 1.4 (0.6) | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.3) |
| (% FVC) | 28.5 (10.5) | 26.2 (10.0) | 26.0 (7.6) | 30.2 (6.4) |
| ERV (L) | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.3) | 0.8 (0.5) | 0.7 (0.4) |
| (% FVC) | 21.2 (6.4) | 22.4 (5.6) | 14.8 (9.1) | 13.3 (6.1) |
| Ti/TTotal (%) | 52.0 (3.4) | 49.7 (2.7) | 50.7 (3.4) | 49.2 (2.1) |
| RPE | 12.2 (2.9) | 12.8 (2.9) | 14.2 (1.5) | 12.8 (1.6) |
| Dyspnea | 4.0 (1.9) | 3.8 (1.2) | 4.7 (1.2) | 4.2 (1.2) |
| At end‐exercise ( | ||||
| RPE | 15.3 (2.5) | 15.8 (2.4) | 16.2 (1.7) | 15.5 (2.5) |
| Dyspnea | 5.8 (1.7) | 5.2 (1.6) | 6.0 (1.6) | 5.8 (2.1) |
IMT, inspiratory muscle training group; PLA, placebo group; O2, absolute oxygen consumption; E, minute ventilation; V T, tidal volume; f b, breathing frequency; EFL, expiratory flow limitation; IRV, inspiratory reserve volume; ERV, expiratory reserve volume; Ti/TTotal, inspiratory duty cycle; RPE, ratings of perceived exertion. Data are given as mean(SD).
Pulmonary function data
| Variable | IMT | PLA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretraining | Posttraining | Pretraining | Posttraining | |
| FVC (L) | 5.5 (0.5) | 5.2 (0.6) | 5.1 (0.6) | 5.1 (0.7) |
| FEV1.0 (L) | 4.0 (0.4) | 4.0 (0.4) | 3.9 (1.0) | 3.8 (0.5) |
| PEF (L·s−1) | 10.0 (0.6) | 9.9 (0.6) | 9.5 (2.3) | 9.7 (1.6) |
|
| 145.5 (24.5) | 163.3 (24.2) | 135.3 (41.5) | 128.7 (38.6) |
|
| 166.3 (51.4) | 187.5 (45.3) | 114.0 (48.3) | 116.5 (56.4) |
IMT, inspiratory muscle training training group; PLA, placebo training group; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1.0, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec; PEF, peak expiratory flow; P Imax, maximal inspiratory mouth pressure; P Emax, maximal expiratory mouth pressure. Data are given as mean(SD).
Significantly different from pretraining; IMT group P Imax difference pre‐ to posttraining P = 0.003, 95% CI +9.0 to +26.6 cmH2O; IMT group P Emax difference pre‐ to posttraining P = 0.012, 95% CI +7.1 to +35.3 cmH2O.