Literature DB >> 29511919

Cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses to self-regulated and imposed submaximal arm-leg ergometry.

Mathew Hill1,2, Christopher Talbot3, Michael Puddiford3, Michael Price4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses to exercise using self-regulated and imposed power outputs distributed between the arms and legs.
METHODS: Ten males (age 21.7 ± 3.4 years) initially undertook incremental arm-crank ergometry (ACE) and cycle ergometry (CYC) tests to volitional exhaustion to determine peak power output (Wpeak). Two subsequent tests involved 20-min combined arm-leg ergometry (ALE) trials, using imposed and self-regulated protocols, both of which aimed to elicit an exercising heart rate of 160 beats min-1. During the imposed trial, arm and leg intensity were set at 40% of each ergometer-specific Wpeak. During the self-regulated trial, participants were asked to self-regulate cadence and resistance to achieve the target heart rate. Heart rate (HR), oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), pulmonary ventilation ([Formula: see text]), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded continuously.
RESULTS: As expected, there were no differences between imposed and self-regulated trials for HR, [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] (all P ≥ 0.05). However, central RPE and local RPE for the arms were lower during self-regulated compared imposed trials (P ≤ 0.05). Lower RPE during the self-regulated trial was related to preferential adjustments in how the arms (33 ± 5% Wpeak) and legs (46 ± 5% Wpeak) contributed to the exercise intensity.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that despite similar metabolic and cardiovascular strain elicited by imposed and self-regulated ALE, the latter was perceived to be less strenuous, which is related to participants doing more work with the legs and less work with the arms to achieve the target intensity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arm-cranking; Combined arm–leg ergometer; Concurrent exercise; Energy expenditure; Whole-body exercise

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29511919     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-018-3838-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  21 in total

1.  Limitations to maximum oxygen uptake in arms, leg, and combined arm-leg ergometry.

Authors:  T Reybrouck; G F Heigenhauser; J A Faulkner
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1975-05       Impact factor: 3.531

2.  Voluntary changes in leg cadence modulate arm cadence during simultaneous arm and leg cycling.

Authors:  Masanori Sakamoto; Toshiki Tazoe; Tsuyoshi Nakajima; Takashi Endoh; Shinichiro Shiozawa; Tomoyoshi Komiyama
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-24       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Does the amount of exercising muscle alter the aerobic demand of dynamic exercise?

Authors:  M D Hoffman; K M Kassay; A I Zeni; P S Clifford
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1996

4.  Responses to arm and leg ergometry.

Authors:  R G Eston; D A Brodie
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 13.800

5.  Maximal oxygen uptake during arm cranking and combined arm plus leg exercise.

Authors:  N H Secher; N Ruberg-Larsen; R A Binkhorst; F Bonde-Petersen
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 3.531

Review 6.  Physiology of upper body exercise.

Authors:  M N Sawka
Journal:  Exerc Sport Sci Rev       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 6.230

7.  Metabolic cost of stride rate, resistance, and combined use of arms and legs on the elliptical trainer.

Authors:  Constance M Mier; Yuri Feito
Journal:  Res Q Exerc Sport       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.500

8.  VO2max responses in separate and combined arm and leg air-braked ergometer exercise.

Authors:  F J Nagle; J P Richie; M D Giese
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  The effects of maximal and submaximal arm crank ergometry and cycle ergometry on postural sway.

Authors:  Mathew W Hill; Mark Goss-Sampson; Michael J Duncan; Michael J Price
Journal:  Eur J Sport Sci       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.050

10.  Energy expenditure with indoor exercise machines.

Authors:  A I Zeni; M D Hoffman; P S Clifford
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-05-08       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.