Characterization of muscle oxygenation response in well-trained handcyclists

PURPOSE

 Peripheral responses might be important in handcycling, given the involvement of small muscles compared to other exercise modalities. Therefore, the goal of this study was to compare changes in muscle oxygen saturation (∆SmO2) and deoxyhemoglobin level (∆[HHb]) between different efforts and muscles.

METHODS

 Handcyclists participated in a Wingate, a maximal incremental test and a 20-min time-trial (TT). Oxygen uptake (VO2) as well as ∆SmO2, ∆[HHb], deoxygenation and reoxygenation rates in the triceps brachii (TB), biceps brachii (BB), anterior deltoid (AD) and extensor carpi radialis brevis (ER) were measured.

RESULTS

 ER ∆[HHb]max was 37% greater in the incremental test than in the Wingate (ES = 0.392, P = 0.031). TT mean power (W/kg) was associated with BB ∆SmO2min measured in the incremental test (r = -0.998 [-1.190, -0.806], P = 0.002) and in the Wingate (r = -0.994 [-1.327, -0.661], P = 0.006). MAP (W/kg) was associated with Wingate BB ∆SmO2min (r = -0.983 [-0.999, -0.839], P = 0.003), and Wingate peak (r = 0.649 [0.379, 0.895], P = 0.008) and mean power (W/kg) (r = 0.925 [0.752, 0.972], P = 0.003) was associated with right handgrip force. The strongest physiological predictor for TT performance was BB ∆SmO2min in the incremental test (P = 0.002, r2 = 0.993, SEE 0.016 W/kg), Wingate BB ∆SmO2min for MAP (P = 0.003, r2 = 0.956, SEE 0.058 W/kg) and right handgrip force for Wingate peak power (P = 0.005, r2 = 0.856, SEE 0.551 W/kg).

CONCLUSION

 Peripheral aerobic responses (muscle oxygenation) were predictive of handcycling performance.

Good association between sprint power and aerobic peak power during asynchronuous arm-crank exercise in people with spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

To (1) investigate the association between sprint power and aerobic power output (POpeak_GXT) during a graded peak exercise test (GXT); and (2) validate the prediction models of POpeak_GXT based on sprint power and personal and lesion characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Wheelchair users with tetraplegia (N = 35) and paraplegia (N = 58) performed a 30 s-Wingate test and GXT on an asynchronous arm-crank ergometer. Data were split into samples to develop and validate the model. Sprint power (POmean_Wingate and POpeak_Wingate, respectively) and POpeak_GXT were determined. Regression analyses were performed to develop POpeak_GXT prediction models. Candidate independent variables included POmean_Wingate or POpeak_Wingate, age (years), sex, body mass (kg) or BMI (kg/m²), time since injury (TSI, years) and lesion level (tetraplegia/paraplegia). The best model was validated by comparing the predicted POpeak_GXT with measured POpeak_GXT.

RESULTS

The best model (R ² = 0.76) to predict POpeak_GXT included POmean_Wingate, BMI and all other independent variables. No significant difference was found between measured (68 ± 35 W) and predicted POpeak_GXT (68 ± 30 W, p = 0.97). The ICC was excellent (0.89 with 95% confidence intervals: 0.75-0.95). The 95% limits of agreement for the Bland-Altman plots were wide (-30 to 31 W).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong associations were found between POmean_Wingate and POpeak_GXT. Although relative agreement was excellent, absolute agreement was low. Implications for rehabilitation There is a strong relationship between peak aerobic power output and sprint power output, both tested on an arm-crank ergometer, in people with spinal cord injury. A prediction model for peak aerobic power output, based on sprint power output and personal and lesion characteristics, showed a high explained variance. The predictive model can give a guideline for choosing the right graded exercise test protocol but should be used with caution.

Oxygen uptake during upper body and lower body Wingate anaerobic tests

The aim of this study was to determine the aerobic contribution to upper body and lower body Wingate Anaerobic tests (WAnT). Eight nonspecifically trained males volunteered to take part in this study. Participants undertook incremental exercise tests for peak oxygen uptake and two 30-s WAnT (habituation and experimental) for both the upper and lower body. The resistive loadings used were 0.040 and 0.075 kg·kg body mass−1, respectively. Peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO) were calculated for each WAnT. The aerobic contribution of each WAnT was assessed using breath by breath expired gas analysis. Peak oxygen uptake was lower for the upper body when compared with the lower body (P = 0.001). Similarly, PPO and MPO were greater for the lower body (both P < 0.001). Absolute oxygen uptake during the upper body WAnT was lower than for the lower body (P = 0.013), whereas relative oxygen uptake (% peak oxygen uptake) was similar (P = 0.997). The mean aerobic contribution for the upper body WAnT (43.5% ± 29.3%) was greater than for the lower body (29.4% ± 15.8%; P < 0.001). The greater aerobic contribution to the WAnT observed for the upper body in comparison with the lower body is likely due to methodological differences in upper and lower body WAnT protocols and potentially differences in anaerobic power production and exercise efficiency. The results of this study suggest that differences may exist for the aerobic contribution of upper and lower body Wingate anaerobic tests.