The effects of perceptually regulated exercise training on cardiorespiratory fitness and peak power output in adults with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Exercise prescription for persons with spinal cord injury: a review of physiological considerations and evidence-based guidelines

Persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience gains in fitness, physical and mental health from regular participation in exercise and physical activity. Due to changes in physiological function of the cardiovascular, nervous, and muscular systems, general population physical activity guidelines and traditional exercise prescription methods are not appropriate for the SCI population. Exercise guidelines specific to persons with SCI recommend progressive training beginning at 20 min of moderate to vigorous intensity aerobic exercise twice per week transitioning to 30 min three times per week, with strength training of the major muscle groups two times per week. These population-specific guidelines were designed considering the substantial barriers to physical activity for persons with SCI and can be used to frame an individual exercise prescription. Rating of perceived exertion (i.e., perceptually regulated exercise) is a practical way to indicate moderate to vigorous intensity exercise in community settings. Adapted exercise modes include arm cycle ergometry, hybrid arm-leg cycling, and recumbent elliptical equipment. Body weight-supported treadmill training and other rehabilitation modalities may improve some aspects of health and fitness for people with SCI if completed at sufficient intensity. Disability-specific community programs offer beneficial opportunities for persons with SCI to experience quality exercise opportunities but are not universally available.

Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the change in maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) over the first 4 weeks of two different inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols and explore if either method is more effective for people with spinal cord injury.

METHODS

Data originated from two published studies. Participants completed flow-resistive IMT (F-IMT) at 80% daily PImax, 7 days/week (supervised weekly), or threshold IMT (T-IMT) at 30-80% weekly PImax, twice-daily, 5 days/week (supervised every session). Seven participants from each trial were matched by training adherence, level of spinal cord injury, impairment grade (A-C), and height. Differences between F-IMT and T-IMT groups in training intensity, breaths taken, inspiratory work, and the change in the PImax from baseline at the end of week four were analysed.

RESULTS

Over 4 weeks, there was no difference in the change in PImax between groups (Absolute change in PImax (cmH2O): p = 0.456, Percent change in PImax relative to baseline: p = 0.128). F-IMT participants trained at a higher intensity (median: 77 vs 22 cmH2O, p = 0.001 and 80% baseline vs 61% baseline, p = 0.038) but took fewer breaths (840 vs 1404 breaths, p = 0.017) than T-IMT participants. Inspiratory work was similar between groups (64,789 vs 65,910 (% PImax × number of breaths), p = 0.535).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support both methods of IMT as the change in PImax and inspiratory work were similar between groups. However, daily high-intensity F-IMT with intermittent supervision, required fewer breaths and less participant and therapist time. Future studies should examine optimal dosage and supervision required to achieve increased PImax.

Dissonance in views between healthcare professionals and adults with a spinal cord injury with their understanding and interpretation of exercise intensity for exercise prescription

Objectives

To evaluate the difference between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) in Asia regarding knowledge and interpretation of 'exercise intensity' for aerobic exercise prescription.

Methods and study design

A survey was distributed to practising HCP and adults with SCI. It was completed in participants' local language on topics related to the importance of exercise frequency, intensity, time and type; methods for monitoring and terms related to exercise intensity prescription. χ² analysis was used to detect differences in HCP or those with SCI.

Results

121 HCP and 107 adults with an SCI ≥1 years (C1-L4) participated. Responses revealed 61% of all HCP ranked 'intensity' being most important whereas only 38% respondents from the SCI group ranked it as high importance (p=0.008). For those with SCI, 'frequency' was most important (61%) which was significantly higher than the 45% selected by HCPs (p=0.030). Of the 228 respondents on average only 34% believed that the terms, 'moderate' and 'vigorous' provided enough information for aerobic exercise intensity prescription. HCP most often used HR methods compared with the SCI group (90% vs 54%; p<0.01). Both groups frequently used the subjective measures of exercise intensity, for example, Ratings of Perceived Exertion (8%3 vs 76% for HCP and SCI), HCP also frequently used speed (81%) and SCI also frequently relied on 'the affect' or feelings while exercising (69%).

Conclusions

These differences must be considered when developing clinical-practice exercise guidelines and health referral educational pathways for adults with SCI in Asia.