VO2peak and Exercise Efficiency in Upper-body Poling

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Status: Completed

Conditions: Spinal Cord Injuries

Treatments: Diagnostic Test: upper-body double-poling; Diagnostic Test: arm crank ergometry

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT03284086

2015/2008

Details and patient eligibility

About

This study compares peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency in upper-body poling versus arm crank ergometry in trained able-bodied and paraplegic participants.

Full description

Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency are key factors for endurance performance. In persons who are primarily able to use their upper-body during exercise, such as many Paralympic athletes, the mode most commonly used in assessing VO2peak and efficiency is arm crank ergometry (ACE). However, sport-specificity of the test mode has been suggested to be of importance for achieving VO2peak and exercise efficiency that are reflective of the aerobic capacity in the respective sport. For ice sledge hockey players, cross-country sit skiers and sitting biathletes, upper-body poling (UP) is the most sport-specific test mode. However, it has not yet been investigated whether VO2peak and efficiency differ between ACE and UP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare VO2peak and exercise efficiency in upper-body poling versus arm crank ergometry in trained able-bodied and paraplegic participants. Participants performed four 5-min submaximal stages at increasing effort and an incremental peak test to exhaustion in both ACE and UP.

Enrollment: 18 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 50 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• participants between the age of 18 and 50
• well upper-body-trained participants with or without paraplegia

Exclusion criteria

• people with injuries or sicknesses that might have impacted the testing

Trial design

Primary purpose: Diagnostic

Allocation: Non-Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

18 participants in 2 patient groups

paraplegic

Other group

Description:

Well-trained participants with a spinal cord injury (\<Th1) were included in this group.

Treatment:

Diagnostic Test: arm crank ergometry

Diagnostic Test: upper-body double-poling

able bodied

Other group

Description:

Upper-body trained, able-bodied participants were included in this group.

Treatment:

Diagnostic Test: arm crank ergometry

Diagnostic Test: upper-body double-poling