Influence of body position on physiological responses during graded maximal arm ergometry
Leicht, A., and Spinks, W. (2005) Influence of body position on physiological responses during graded maximal arm ergometry. Promoting Innovation Measuring Success: program & abstracts of 2005 Australian Conference of Science and Medicine in Sport, Fifth National Physical Activity Conference and Fourth National Sports Injury Prevention Conference. 2005 Australian Conference of Science and Medicine in Sport , 13-16 October 2005, Melbourne, VIC, Australia , p. 189.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
Upper body exercise or arm ergometry (AE) has been primarily used for rehabilitation purposes but recently, AE has been utilised in the assessment of athletes involved with swimming, kayaking and wrestling. Anecdotal reports have suggested that the standard seated AE position may limit upper body performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of body position on cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses during graded maximal AE. Sixteen healthy, active, university students volunteered for this study and completed two graded maximal AE tests, one week apart. Each test was performed in the seated position with either the shoulder joint level (0) or elevated (45) above the crank axle, with the order of positions randomly allocated. Cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses were recorded at the end of each minute of an incremental (16 W min-1) AE protocol using a MONARK 881E Rehab Trainer. Comparisons between positions were conducted using paired t-test or Mann-U Whitney tests, where appropriate. Maximum power output, aerobic capacity (V02), ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio and rating of perceived exertion were similar for both positions during the graded maximal tests. Heart rate was greater and significantly greater at the higher workloads for the 45 position. Despite similar V02peak values, the inter-test variability was large ( 0.6 L min-1). In conclusion, elevation of the shoulder for upper body exercise did not enhance V02 and performance. Due to the large inter-test variability, AE should be performed using the same seated position.
|Item Type:||Conference Item (Presentation)|
|Keywords:||arm cranking, exercise capacity, upright exercise|
|FoR Codes:||11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1106 Human Movement and Sports Science > 110602 Exercise Physiology @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||97 EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE > 970111 Expanding Knowledge in the Medical and Health Sciences @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||22 Nov 2011 08:30|
|Last Modified:||22 Nov 2011 18:05|
Last 12 Months: 0
Repository Staff Only: item control page