Current limits for flowmeter resistance in metabolic carts can negatively affect exercise performance.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether a metabolic cart using a flowmeter in the upper range of accepted resistance to airflow (<1.5 cmH2 O∙L-1 ∙s-1 for flows up to 14 L∙s-1 , American Thoracic Society) negatively impacts exercise performance in healthy individuals. METHODS: 16 recreationally active males (age 25 ± 1 years, height 180 ± 6 cm, weight 73.5 ± 5.8 kg, all mean ± SD) performed two incremental tests on a bicycle ergometer on each of two visits, using a metabolic cart with a flowmeter of either low (Oxycon Pro) or high (Innocor) airflow resistance. Mouth pressures, gas exchange, blood lactate concentration [La- ], perception of breathlessness, respiratory, and leg exertion were assessed throughout the tests. RESULTS: Tests performed with the Innocor were significantly shorter (15.3 ± 3.2 vs. 15.8 ± 3.3 min, p < 0.0001) and showed higher maximal flow resistance (1.3 ± 0.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.0 cmH2 O∙L-1 ∙s-1 , p < 0.0001). At end-exercise, peak oxygen consumption (-200 ± 220 ml.min-1 , p < 0.0001), minute ventilation (-19.9 ± 10.5 L.min-1 , p < 0.0001), breathing frequency (-5.4 ± 5.2 breaths.min-1 , p < 0.0001), heart rate (-2.1 ± 3.6 bpm, p = 0.002) and [La- ] (-0.7 ± 1.0 mmol.L-1 , p < 0.0001), but not tidal volume (-0.1 ± 0.2 L, p = 0.172) were lower with the Innocor, while the perception of breathlessness was higher (+3.8 ± 5.1 points, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Airflow resistance in the upper range of current guidelines can significantly affect exercise performance and respiratory pattern in young, healthy males during incremental exercise. The present results indicate the need to revisit guidelines for devices used in ergospirometry.

Cardiorespiratory Responses to Constant and Varied-Load Interval Training Sessions.

PURPOSE: To compare the cardiorespiratory responses of a traditional session of high-intensity interval training session with that of a session of similar duration and average load, but with decreasing workload within each bout in cyclists and runners. METHODS: A total of 15 cyclists (maximal oxygen uptake [V˙O2max] 62 [6] mL·kg-1·min-1) and 15 runners (V˙O2max 58 [4] mL·kg-1·min-1) performed both sessions at the maximal common tolerable load on different days. The sessions consisted of four 4-minute intervals interspersed with 3 minutes of active recovery. Power output was held constant for each bout within the traditional day, whereas power started 40 W (2 km·h-1) higher and finished 40 W (2 km·h-1) lower than average within each bout of the decremental session. RESULTS: Average oxygen uptake during the high-intensity intervals was higher in the decremental session in cycling (89 [4]% vs 86 [5]% of V˙O2max, P = .002) but not in running (91 [4]% vs 90 [4]% of V˙O2max, P = .38), as was the time spent >90% of V˙O2max and the time spent >90% of peak heart rate. Average heart rate (P < .001), pulmonary ventilation (P < .001), and blood lactate concentration (P < .001) were higher during the decremental sessions in both cycling and running. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of physiological perturbations were achieved during decremental sessions in both cycling and running. These differences were, however, more prominent in cycling, thus making cycling a more attractive modality for testing the effects of a training intervention.

The effect of different running shoes on treadmill running mechanics and muscle activity assessed using statistical parametric mapping (SPM).

BACKGROUND: Differences in joint mechanics between running shoes are commonly assessed using discrete parameters, yet statistically significant differences in these parameters between shoes are often scarce with small effect sizes. Statistical parametric mapping (SPM) has been suggested as suitable method for analyzing one-dimensional data such as kinematic, kinetic or muscle intensity time series. RESEARCH QUESTION: The purpose of this study was to determine differences in treadmill running mechanics between novel running shoes using SPM. METHODS: Joint kinematics, muscle activity and ground reaction force were assessed in 19 rearfoot runners in their own shoes and in two test shoes during treadmill running (test shoe 1: 13 distinct rubber elements in the outer sole, springboard within EVA midsole with posterior elements shifted anteriorly by approximately 1.5 cm; test shoe 2: 17 distinct EVA elements with conventional heel geometry). Joint kinematics were measured using an inertial sensor system, and ground reaction force was measured using an instrumented treadmill. RESULTS: SPM analysis with repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant reductions in the ankle angle and in tibialis anterior, peroneus longus, vastus medialis and lateralis muscle activity during weight acceptance and in peroneus longus muscle activity during early and late swing and in semitendinosus muscle activity during late swing for the test shoes. Significant differences in muscle activity were observed in the interval of the main activity of the respective muscle. SPM on individual data revealed statistically significant and relevant within-subject differences between conditions in kinematic, muscle activity and ground reaction force patterns. SIGNIFICANCE: Inertial sensor systems and SPM may provide an efficient way of detecting changes in joint mechanics between running shoes within runners. Detecting within-subject differences in running mechanics between conditions not only requires statistical criteria but also criteria on the relevance of the magnitude of differences.

Measuring joint kinematics of treadmill walking and running: Comparison between an inertial sensor based system and a camera-based system.

Inertial sensor systems are becoming increasingly popular for gait analysis because their use is simple and time efficient. This study aimed to compare joint kinematics measured by the inertial sensor system RehaGait® with those of an optoelectronic system (Vicon®) for treadmill walking and running. Additionally, the test re-test repeatability of kinematic waveforms and discrete parameters for the RehaGait® was investigated. Twenty healthy runners participated in this study. Inertial sensors and reflective markers (PlugIn Gait) were attached according to respective guidelines. The two systems were started manually at the same time. Twenty consecutive strides for walking and running were recorded and each software calculated sagittal plane ankle, knee and hip kinematics. Measurements were repeated after 20min. Ensemble means were analyzed calculating coefficients of multiple correlation for waveforms and root mean square errors (RMSE) for waveforms and discrete parameters. After correcting the offset between waveforms, the two systems/models showed good agreement with coefficients of multiple correlation above 0.950 for walking and running. RMSE of the waveforms were below 5° for walking and below 8° for running. RMSE for ranges of motion were between 4° and 9° for walking and running. Repeatability analysis of waveforms showed very good to excellent coefficients of multiple correlation (>0.937) and RMSE of 3° for walking and 3-7° for running. These results indicate that in healthy subjects sagittal plane joint kinematics measured with the RehaGait® are comparable to those using a Vicon® system/model and that the measured kinematics have a good repeatability, especially for walking.