Abstract
The present study examined the impact of two exercise protocols on the attainment
of peak physiological responses during arm crank ergometry (ACE). Fourteen physically
active, although non-specifically trained male subjects completed two V·O2 peak tests using an electrically braked arm ergometer (Lode Angio, Groningen, Netherlands).
The tests consisted of a stepwise or rampwise increase in external workload. The order
of tests was randomised and each test was separated by at least two days. Respiratory
data were collected continuously using an on-line gas analysis system with sample
time set at 30 s. Fingertip capillary blood samples (∼ 20 µL) were collected at volitional
exhaustion and at minute intervals for 7 min of passive recovery for the determination
of peak whole blood lactate concentration. Time on the test (Tlim; s), peak minute power (PMP; W), and total work done (TWD; kJ) were also recorded.
In addition to determining systematic bias using separate independent t-tests, the level of agreement was also examined by way of calculating the 95 % limits
of agreement. Sub-maximal values of V·O2, V·E, and HR were similar (p > 0.05) between test when the amount of external work
completed was taken into consideration. There was no systematic bias (p > 0.05) for
mean (± s) peak values of V·O2 (3.12 [0.37] vs. 3.04 [0.38] L · min-1) or any other parameter between the step and ramp tests, respectively. Mean values
of Tlim, PMP, and TWD were also similar (p > 0.05) between tests. However, the level of agreement
for peak values of all test parameters was low. It is therefore concluded that while
either test can be considered as being suitable for the purpose of eliciting V·O2 peak and other physiological responses using ACE, they should not be used interchangeably
for the purpose of assessing parameters linked to the aerobic capacity of the upper-body.
Key words
Upper-body exercise - aerobic capacity - limits of agreement - blood lactate - recovery
References
- 1
Atkinson G, Nevill A M.
Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant
to sports medicine.
Sports Med.
1998;
26
217-236
- 2
Bader D S, Maguire T E, Balady G J.
Comparison of ramp versus step protocols for exercise testing in patients > or = 60
years of age.
Am J Cardiol.
1999;
83
11-14
- 3
Bland J M, Altman D G.
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.
Lancet.
1986;
1
307-310
- 4
Bogaard H J, Woltjer H H, van Keimpema A RJ, Stter R A, Postmus P E, de Vries P MJM.
Comparison of the respiratory and hemodynamic responses of healthy subjects to exercise
in three different protocols.
Occup Med.
1996;
46
293-298
- 5
Davis J A, Whipp B J, Lamarra N, Huntsman D J, Frank M H, Wasserman K.
Effect of ramp slope on determination of aerobic parameters from the ramp exercise
test.
Med Sci Sport Exerc.
1982;
14
339-343
- 6
DiCarlo S E.
Effect of arm ergometry on wheelchair propulsion endurance of individuals with quadriplegia.
Phys Ther.
1988;
68
40-44
- 7 Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. London, England; Sage Publications
2000
- 8
Gollnick P D, Armstrong R B, Saubert C W, Piehl K, Saltin B.
Enzyme activity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trained
men.
J Appl Physiol.
1972;
33
312-319
- 9
Johnson M A, Polgar J, Weightman D, Appleton D.
Data on the distribution of fiber types in thirty-six human muscles: an autopsy study.
J Neurol Sci.
1973;
18
111-129
- 10
Kuipers H, Verstappen F TJ, Keizer H A, Geurten P, van Kranenburg G.
Variability of aerobic performance in the laboratory and its physiological correlates.
Intern J Sports Med.
1985;
6
197-201
- 11
Martin T W, Zeballos R J, Weisman I M.
Gas exchange during maximal upper extremity exercise.
Chest.
1991;
99
420-425
- 12
Myers J, Bellin D.
Ramp exercise protocols for clinical and cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
Sports Med.
2000;
30
23-29
- 13
Myers J, Buchanan N, Smith D, Neutel J, Bowes E, Walsh D, Froelicher V F.
Individualized ramp treadmill: observations on a new protocol.
Chest.
1992;
101
236-241
- 14
Myers J, Buchanan N, Walsh D, Kraemer M, McAuley P, Hamilton-Wessler M, Froelicher V F.
Comparison of ramp versus standard exercise protocols.
J Am Coll Cardiol.
1991;
17
1334-1342
- 15
Powers S K, Beadle R E, Magnum M.
Exercise efficiency during arm ergometry: effects of speed and work rate.
J Appl Physiol.
1984;
56
495-499
- 16
Price M J, Campbell I G.
Determination of peak oxygen uptake during upper body exercise.
Ergonomics.
1997;
40
491-499
- 17
Sawka M N.
Physiology of upper body exercise.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev.
1986;
14
175-211
- 18
Sawka M N, Foley M E, Pimental N A, Toner M M, Pandolf K B.
Determination of maximal aerobic power during upper-body exercise.
J Appl Physiol.
1983;
54
113-117
- 19
Secher N H, Ruberg-Larsen N, Binkhorst R A, Bonde-Petersen F.
Maximal oxygen uptake during arm cranking and combined arm plus leg exercise.
J Appl Physiol.
1974;
5
515-518
- 20
Shaw D J, Crawford M H, Karliner J S, DiDonna G, Carleton R M, Ross J, O'Rourke R A.
Arm-crank ergometry: a new method for the evaluation of coronary artery disease.
Am J Cardiol.
1974;
33
801-805
- 21
Smith P M, Price M J, Doherty M.
The influence of crank rate on peak oxygen consumption during arm crank ergometry.
J Sports Sci.
2001;
19
955-960
- 22
Washburn R A, Seals D R.
Comparison of continuous and discontinuous protocols for the determination of peak
oxygen uptake in arm cranking.
Euro J Appl Physiol.
1983;
51
3-6
- 23
Zhang Y-Y, Johnson II M C, Chow N, Wasserman K.
Effects of exercise testing protocol on parameters of aerobic function.
Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1991;
23
625-630
P. M. Smith
Department of Sport, Exercise and Biomedical Sciences, University of Luton
Park Square
Luton, Beds LU1 3JU
United Kingdom
Phone: + 01582734111 ext. 2131
Fax: + 0 15 82 48 92 12
Email: paul.smith@luton.ac.uk
