Assessment of aerobic fitness in individuals with and without nonspecific chronic low back pain: a pilot study.

Aerobic fitness assessment in patients with low back pain (LBP) may help clinicians to plan how to progress the aerobic training. This was a pilot study designed to evaluate the performance of people with LBP on two different aerobic fitness tests performed on a treadmill and to compare the measure of aerobic fitness between people with LBP and healthy individuals. Ten people with LBP and 10 healthy individuals underwent two aerobic fitness protocols, the modified Bruce and maximum incremental test protocols, performed on a treadmill. Data collected during the protocols were: oxygen consumption, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration, respiratory quotient, rating of perceived exertion response, and pain intensity. Independent t-test and two-way analysis of variance were used respectively to assess difference between groups characteristics and physiological responses to the protocols. Our results showed that both groups were similar with regards to age (P = 0.839) or HRrest (P = 0.730) but the LBP group showed higher BMI compared to the healthy group (P = 0.031). Regarding the performance of both groups on the aerobic fitness tests, the only significant difference was reported for respiratory quotient which showed a main effect of test (P = 0.015) with higher values favoring the modified Bruce over the incremental test. Our study showed that most people with LBP are able to perform and tolerate both aerobic fitness tests but no significant differences between people with LBP and healthy individuals on both protocols were reported.

High- or moderate-intensity training promotes change in cardiorespiratory fitness, but not visceral fat, in obese men: A randomised trial of equal energy expenditure exercise.

This study compared the effects of two exercise programs performed in different intensities, but equal overall energy expenditure (EE). Adult men with obesity (29.6 ± 4.9 years; BMI = 35.1 ± 3.3 kg/m2) were randomised to one of three groups: High-intensity interval training (HIIT- 10 × 1:1 min 100% VO2max; n = 13); Moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT - ˜35 min 65% VO2max; n = 13) or Control (no training; n = 6). The session EE (HIIT = 278.0 ± 37.1; MICT = 299.4 ± 17.8 kcal) was calculated by adding the aerobic contribution (VO2 of the session minus VO2 at rest) and anaerobic (difference between the VO2 estimated and VO2 measured in session). The anaerobic contribution in HIIT was 30%, showing that a substantial portion of the energy for 10 x 1 min HIIT comes from non-oxidative metabolism. VO2max improved in both trained groups (p = 0.006), while systolic blood pressure decreased (p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure was not altered. Visceral and subcutaneous fat stores did not change after the intervention, indicating a longer intervention may be necessary for changes in adiposity. Six weeks of HIIT or MICT were effective in improving cardiorespiratory fitness and blood pressure in previously inactive obese men.

Is Oxygen Uptake Measurement Enough to Estimate Energy Expenditure During High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise? Quantification of Anaerobic Contribution by Different Methods.

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the contributions of the anaerobic pathway as determined by two different methods and energy expenditure during a typical high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) protocol. Methods: A descriptive research design was utilized in which thirteen physically active men performed six experimental sessions consisting of an incremental test (session 1), submaximal tests at 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90% of velocity associated with maximum oxygen uptake (v V˙ O2max) with two intensities per session (sessions 2-5), and the HIIE protocol (session 6; 10 efforts of 1 min at v V˙ O2max interspersed by 1 min of passive recovery). The estimation of anaerobic energy system contribution was calculated by: (a) the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption plus delta lactate method and (b) the accumulated oxygen deficit method using the difference between predicted oxygen demand from the submaximal tests of varying intensities and accumulated oxygen uptake during HIIE. Estimation of aerobic energy system contribution was calculated through the measurement of oxygen consumption during activity. Total EE during the entire HIIE protocol (efforts + recovery) and for the efforts only were calculated from each method. Results: For efforts + recovery and efforts only, anaerobic contribution was similar for both methods, and consequently total EE was also equivalent (p = 0.230 for both comparisons). During efforts + recovery, aerobic:anaerobic energy system contribution was (68 ± 4%: 32 ± 4%), while efforts only was (54 ± 5%: 46 ± 5%) with both situations demonstrating greater aerobic than anaerobic contribution (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusion: Anaerobic contribution seems to be relevant during HIIE and must to be taken into account during total EE estimation; however, the type of method employed did not change the anaerobic contribution or total EE estimates.