Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 3 de 3
1.
Sports Med Open ; 10(1): 71, 2024 Jun 10.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38856875

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a growing risk factor worldwide, therefore getting people into sports is necessary. When prescribing physical activity, it is essential to recommend the correct training intensities. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) enables precise determination of individuals' training intensities but is unavailable for a broad population. Therefore, the Borg scale allows individuals to assess perceived exertion and set their intensity easily and cost-efficiently. In order to transfer CPX to rating of perceived exertion (RPE), previous studies investigated RPE on specific physiological anchors, e.g. blood lactate (bLa) concentrations, but representativeness for a broad population is questionable. Some contradictory findings regarding individual factors influencing RPE occur, whereas univariable analysis has been performed so far. Moreover, a multivariable understanding of individual factors influencing RPE is missing. This study aims to determine RPE values at the individual anaerobic threshold (LT2) and defined bLa concentrations in a large cohort and to evaluate individual factors influencing RPE with multivariable analysis. METHODS: CPX with bicycle or treadmill ergometer of 6311 participants were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. RPE values at bLa concentrations 2 mmol/l, 3 mmol/l, 4 mmol/l, and LT2 (first rise in bLa over baseline + 1.5 mmol/l) were estimated by spline interpolation. Multivariable cumulative ordinal regression models were performed to assess the influence of sex, age, type of ergometry, VO2max, and duration of exercise testing on RPE. RESULTS: Median values [interquartile range (IQR)] of the total population were RPE 13 [11; 14] at 2 mmol/l, RPE 15 [13; 16] at 3 mmol/l, RPE 16 [15; 17] at 4 mmol/l, and RPE 15 [14; 16] at LT2. Main influence of individual factors on RPE were seen especially at 2 mmol/l: male sex (odds ratio (OR) [95%-CI]: 0.65 [0.587; 0.719]), treadmill ergometry (OR 0.754 [0.641; 0.886]), number of stages (OR 1.345 [1.300; 1.394]), age (OR 1.015 [1.012; 1.018]), and VO2max (OR 1.023 [1.015; 1.030]). Number of stages was the only identified influencing factor on RPE at all lactate concentrations/LT2 (3 mmol/l: OR 1.290 [1.244; 1.336]; 4 mmol/l: OR 1.229 [1.187; 1.274]; LT2: OR 1.155 [1.115; 1.197]). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest RPE ≤ 11 for light intensity, RPE 12-14 for moderate intensity, and RPE 15-17 for vigorous intensity, which slightly differs from the current American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommendations. Additionally, we propose an RPE of 15 delineating heavy and severe intensity domain. Age, sex, type of ergometry, duration of exercise, and cardiopulmonary fitness should be considered when recommending individualized intensities with RPE, primarily at lower intensities. Therefore, this study can be used as a new guideline for prescribing individual RPE values in the clinical practice, predominantly for endurance type exercise.

2.
Sports Med ; 54(4): 1033-1049, 2024 Apr.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38206445

BACKGROUND: An infection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a variety of symptoms and complications, which can impair athletic activity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the clinical symptom patterns, diagnostic findings, and the extent of impairment in sport practice in a large cohort of athletes infected with SARS-CoV-2, both initially after infection and at follow-up. Additionally, we investigated whether baseline factors that may contribute to reduced exercise tolerance at follow-up can be identified. METHODS: In this prospective, observational, multicenter study, we recruited German COVID elite-athletes (cEAs, n = 444) and COVID non-elite athletes (cNEAs, n = 481) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (polymerase chain reaction test). Athletes from the federal squad with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection served as healthy controls (EAcon, n = 501). Questionnaires were used to assess load and duration of infectious symptoms, other complaints, exercise tolerance, and duration of training interruption at baseline and at follow-up 6 months after baseline. Diagnostic tests conducted at baseline included resting and exercise electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography, spirometry, and blood analyses. RESULTS: Most acute and infection-related symptoms and other complaints were more prevalent in cNEA than in cEAs. Compared to cEAs, EAcon had a low symptom load. In cNEAs, female athletes had a higher prevalence of complaints such as palpitations, dizziness, chest pain, myalgia, sleeping disturbances, mood swings, and concentration problems compared to male athletes (p < 0.05). Until follow-up, leading symptoms were drop in performance, concentration problems, and dyspnea on exertion. Female athletes had significantly higher prevalence for symptoms until follow-up compared to male. Pathological findings in ECG, echocardiography, and spirometry, attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, were rare in infected athletes. Most athletes reported a training interruption between 2 and 4 weeks (cNEAs: 52.9%, cEAs: 52.4%), while more cNEAs (27.1%) compared to cEAs (5.1%) had a training interruption lasting more than 4 weeks (p < 0.001). At follow-up, 13.8% of cNEAs and 9.9% of cEAs (p = 0.24) reported their current exercise tolerance to be under 70% compared to pre-infection state. A persistent loss of exercise tolerance at follow-up was associated with persistent complaints at baseline, female sex, a longer break in training, and age > 38 years. Periodical dichotomization of the data set showed a higher prevalence of infectious symptoms such as cough, sore throat, and coryza in the second phase of the pandemic, while a number of neuropsychiatric symptoms as well as dyspnea on exertion were less frequent in this period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to recreational athletes, elite athletes seem to be at lower risk of being or remaining symptomatic after SARS-CoV-2 infection. It remains to be determined whether persistent complaints after SARS-CoV-2 infection without evidence of accompanying organ damage may have a negative impact on further health and career in athletes. Identifying risk factors for an extended recovery period such as female sex and ongoing neuropsychological symptoms could help to identify athletes, who may require a more cautious approach to rebuilding their training regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023717; 06.15.2021-retrospectively registered.


Athletes , COVID-19 , Exercise Tolerance , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Prospective Studies , Male , Adult , Germany/epidemiology , Young Adult , Myalgia/epidemiology
3.
Int J Public Health ; 67: 1604414, 2022.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35197815

Objective: It is unclear whether and to what extent COVID-19 infection poses health risks and a chronic impairment of performance in athletes. Identification of individual health risk is an important decision-making basis for managing the pandemic risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 in sports and return to play (RTP). Methods: This study aims 1) to analyze the longitudinal rate of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in German athletes, 2) to assess health-related consequences in athletes infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 3) to reveal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in general and of a cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection on exercise performance. CoSmo-S is a prospective observational multicenter study establishing two cohorts: 1) athletes diagnosed positive for COVID-19 (cohort 1) and 2) federal squad athletes who perform their annual sports medical preparticipation screening (cohort 2). Comprehensive diagnostics including physical examination, laboratory blood analyses and blood biobanking, resting and exercise electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography, spirometry and exercise testing added by questionnaires are conducted at baseline and follow-up. Results and Conclusion: We expect that the results obtained, will allow us to formulate recommendations regarding RTP on a more evidence-based level.


COVID-19 , Biological Specimen Banks , Cohort Studies , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
...