Mauricio Inostroza1,2, Omar Valdés1,3, German Tapia1, Oscar Núñez1, Maria Jose Kompen1, Kazunori Nosaka4, Luis Peñailillo5,6. 1. Exercise Science Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Santiago, Chile. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de las Américas, Santiago, Chile. 4. Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 5. Exercise Science Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile. luis.penailillo@unab.cl. 6. Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Laboratory, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, 700 Fernández Concha, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile. luis.penailillo@unab.cl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study compared the effects of eccentric cycling (ECC) and conventional concentric cycling (CONC) training on muscle function, body composition, functional performance, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Twenty patients (age: 69.6 ± 10.1 years, forced expiratory volume in 1-s: 73.2 ± 11.4% of predicted) were randomly allocated to ECC (n = 10) or CONC (n = 10) group. They performed 12 weeks of ECC or CONC training at similar perceived exertion. The workload, heart rate (HR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and dyspnea were monitored during cycling. Outcomes measures included maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength of the knee extensors, rate of force development (RFD), lower limb fat-free (LLFFM) and fat (LLFM) mass, 6-min walking test (6MWT), timed up-and-go test (TUG), stairs ascending (SAWT) and descending walking time (SDWT), and QOL assessed by the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire. RESULTS: ECC produced on average threefold greater (P < 0.001) workload (211.8 ± 106.0 kJ) than CONC (78.1 ± 62.6 kJ) over 34 training sessions. ECC showed 1.5 ± 2.1% greater SpO2, 24.7 ± 4.1% lower HR, and 64.4 ± 29.6% lower dyspnea in average than CONC (P < 0.001). ECC increased LLFFM (4.5 ± 6.2%; P = 0.03), while CONC decreased LLFM (3.3 ± 6.4%; P = 0.04) after training. Both ECC and CONC reduced (P < 0.05) SAWT (- 16.1 ± 9.3% vs - 10.1 ± 14.4%) and SDWT (- 12.2 ± 12.6% vs - 14.4 ± 14.7%), and improved (P < 0.05) QOL (33.4 ± 38.8 vs 26.1 ± 36.6%) similarly, but only ECC improved (P < 0.05) RFD (69-199%), TUG (13.6 ± 13.6%), and 6MWT (25.3 ± 27.7%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ECC training with less cardio-pulmonary demands was more effective in increasing functional performance and muscle mass for COPD patients than CONC training.
PURPOSE: The present study compared the effects of eccentric cycling (ECC) and conventional concentric cycling (CONC) training on muscle function, body composition, functional performance, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Twenty patients (age: 69.6 ± 10.1 years, forced expiratory volume in 1-s: 73.2 ± 11.4% of predicted) were randomly allocated to ECC (n = 10) or CONC (n = 10) group. They performed 12 weeks of ECC or CONC training at similar perceived exertion. The workload, heart rate (HR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and dyspnea were monitored during cycling. Outcomes measures included maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength of the knee extensors, rate of force development (RFD), lower limb fat-free (LLFFM) and fat (LLFM) mass, 6-min walking test (6MWT), timed up-and-go test (TUG), stairs ascending (SAWT) and descending walking time (SDWT), and QOL assessed by the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire. RESULTS: ECC produced on average threefold greater (P < 0.001) workload (211.8 ± 106.0 kJ) than CONC (78.1 ± 62.6 kJ) over 34 training sessions. ECC showed 1.5 ± 2.1% greater SpO2, 24.7 ± 4.1% lower HR, and 64.4 ± 29.6% lower dyspnea in average than CONC (P < 0.001). ECC increased LLFFM (4.5 ± 6.2%; P = 0.03), while CONC decreased LLFM (3.3 ± 6.4%; P = 0.04) after training. Both ECC and CONC reduced (P < 0.05) SAWT (- 16.1 ± 9.3% vs - 10.1 ± 14.4%) and SDWT (- 12.2 ± 12.6% vs - 14.4 ± 14.7%), and improved (P < 0.05) QOL (33.4 ± 38.8 vs 26.1 ± 36.6%) similarly, but only ECC improved (P < 0.05) RFD (69-199%), TUG (13.6 ± 13.6%), and 6MWT (25.3 ± 27.7%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ECC training with less cardio-pulmonary demands was more effective in increasing functional performance and muscle mass for COPD patients than CONC training.
Authors: M Ferrer; J Alonso; L Prieto; V Plaza; E Monsó; R Marrades; M C Aguar; A Khalaf; J M Antó Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Harry R Gosker; Patrick Schrauwen; Roelinka Broekhuizen; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Esther Moonen-Kornips; Kimberly A Ward; Frits M E Franssen; Emiel F M Wouters; Annemie M W J Schols Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Thomas Janssens; Zora Van de Moortel; Wolfgang Geidl; Johannes Carl; Klaus Pfeifer; Nicola Lehbert; Michael Wittmann; Konrad Schultz; Andreas von Leupoldt Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 4.241