Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease
To clarify the influence of body position on exercise prescription, 14 men (mean age ± standard deviation 60.0 ± 6.1 years) with coronary artery disease who underwent randomized recumbent and upright cycle ergometer tests to volitional fatigue were studied. At 100 watts, heart rate (HR), systolic bl...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of cardiology 1992, Vol.69 (1), p.40-44 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 44 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 40 |
| container_title | The American journal of cardiology |
| container_volume | 69 |
| creator | Bonzheim, Scott C. Franklin, Barry A. DeWitt, Christopher Marks, Charles Goslin, Brian Jarski, Robert Dann, Sherry |
| description | To clarify the influence of body position on exercise prescription, 14 men (mean age ± standard deviation 60.0 ± 6.1 years) with coronary artery disease who underwent randomized recumbent and upright cycle ergometer tests to volitional fatigue were studied. At 100 watts, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, oxygen consumption (VO
2), rate pressure product and rating of perceived exertion were greater (p < 0.05) in the upright than in the recumbent position. At peak exercise, however, these variables were not significantly different. Regressions of relative HR versus VO
2 for recumbent and upright cycle ergometry were comparable: y = 1.24x − 32.7 and y = 1.26x − 31.5, respectively, where y = % maximal VO
2, and x = % maximal HR. These findings indicate that recumbent exercise prescriptions may be based on the peak HR and VO
2 values obtained during upright cycle ergometry, and vice versa. However, differences in the cardiorespiratory responses at submaximal exercise preclude the interchangeability of upright and recumbent training work rates. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/0002-9149(92)90673-M |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72740035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>000291499290673M</els_id><sourcerecordid>72740035</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-eaac120653927399e1d0ea3cb7cc2da8f1d3e1546032afadd9118e658c5b73403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd2KFDEQhYMo6-zqGyjkQkTB1lSn_3KzIMv6A7vohV6HTFI9E-nutEl6dV7E57WaGdY7r4qivnMozmHsGYi3IKB5J4QoCwWVeqXK10o0rSxuH7ANdK0qQIF8yDb3yGN2ntIPWgHq5oydQVuqrqk37M_X_SH5MISdtzximsOUMPEcaLHLuMUp8zuMaUl8maPf7TO3Bzsgx7gLI-Z4eMPN5Lgf58Fbkz3peR8ix98YrU_IZ3K10c_rifuJzwSRa-K_fN5zG2KYTDxwEzPScCQxCZ-wR70ZEj49zQv2_cP1t6tPxc2Xj5-v3t8UVgrIBRpjoRRNLVXZSqUQnEAj7ba1tnSm68FJhLpqhCxNb5xTAB02dWfrbSsrIS_Yy6PvHMPPBVPWo08Wh8FMGJak27KthJA1gdURtDGkFLHXlMZIj2sQeq1Dr1nrNWutaK516FuSPT_5L9sR3T_RMX-6vzjdTbJm6KOZKLR7rIauEaoj7PKIIWVx5zHqZClEi85TTVm74P__x1_pU6s_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72740035</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Bonzheim, Scott C. ; Franklin, Barry A. ; DeWitt, Christopher ; Marks, Charles ; Goslin, Brian ; Jarski, Robert ; Dann, Sherry</creator><creatorcontrib>Bonzheim, Scott C. ; Franklin, Barry A. ; DeWitt, Christopher ; Marks, Charles ; Goslin, Brian ; Jarski, Robert ; Dann, Sherry</creatorcontrib><description>To clarify the influence of body position on exercise prescription, 14 men (mean age ± standard deviation 60.0 ± 6.1 years) with coronary artery disease who underwent randomized recumbent and upright cycle ergometer tests to volitional fatigue were studied. At 100 watts, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, oxygen consumption (VO
2), rate pressure product and rating of perceived exertion were greater (p < 0.05) in the upright than in the recumbent position. At peak exercise, however, these variables were not significantly different. Regressions of relative HR versus VO
2 for recumbent and upright cycle ergometry were comparable: y = 1.24x − 32.7 and y = 1.26x − 31.5, respectively, where y = % maximal VO
2, and x = % maximal HR. These findings indicate that recumbent exercise prescriptions may be based on the peak HR and VO
2 values obtained during upright cycle ergometry, and vice versa. However, differences in the cardiorespiratory responses at submaximal exercise preclude the interchangeability of upright and recumbent training work rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(92)90673-M</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1729865</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJCDAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Blood Pressure ; Cardiology. Vascular system ; Coronary Disease - physiopathology ; Coronary Disease - psychology ; Coronary heart disease ; Exercise Test ; Exercise Therapy ; Fatigue ; Heart ; Heart Rate ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Oxygen Consumption ; Perception ; Posture - physiology ; Prescriptions ; Regression Analysis ; Respiratory Function Tests ; Space life sciences</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 1992, Vol.69 (1), p.40-44</ispartof><rights>1992</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-eaac120653927399e1d0ea3cb7cc2da8f1d3e1546032afadd9118e658c5b73403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-eaac120653927399e1d0ea3cb7cc2da8f1d3e1546032afadd9118e658c5b73403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(92)90673-M$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,4024,27923,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=5186098$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1729865$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bonzheim, Scott C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franklin, Barry A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeWitt, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goslin, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jarski, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dann, Sherry</creatorcontrib><title>Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><description>To clarify the influence of body position on exercise prescription, 14 men (mean age ± standard deviation 60.0 ± 6.1 years) with coronary artery disease who underwent randomized recumbent and upright cycle ergometer tests to volitional fatigue were studied. At 100 watts, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, oxygen consumption (VO
2), rate pressure product and rating of perceived exertion were greater (p < 0.05) in the upright than in the recumbent position. At peak exercise, however, these variables were not significantly different. Regressions of relative HR versus VO
2 for recumbent and upright cycle ergometry were comparable: y = 1.24x − 32.7 and y = 1.26x − 31.5, respectively, where y = % maximal VO
2, and x = % maximal HR. These findings indicate that recumbent exercise prescriptions may be based on the peak HR and VO
2 values obtained during upright cycle ergometry, and vice versa. However, differences in the cardiorespiratory responses at submaximal exercise preclude the interchangeability of upright and recumbent training work rates.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Blood Pressure</subject><subject>Cardiology. Vascular system</subject><subject>Coronary Disease - physiopathology</subject><subject>Coronary Disease - psychology</subject><subject>Coronary heart disease</subject><subject>Exercise Test</subject><subject>Exercise Therapy</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Heart Rate</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oxygen Consumption</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Posture - physiology</subject><subject>Prescriptions</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Respiratory Function Tests</subject><subject>Space life sciences</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kd2KFDEQhYMo6-zqGyjkQkTB1lSn_3KzIMv6A7vohV6HTFI9E-nutEl6dV7E57WaGdY7r4qivnMozmHsGYi3IKB5J4QoCwWVeqXK10o0rSxuH7ANdK0qQIF8yDb3yGN2ntIPWgHq5oydQVuqrqk37M_X_SH5MISdtzximsOUMPEcaLHLuMUp8zuMaUl8maPf7TO3Bzsgx7gLI-Z4eMPN5Lgf58Fbkz3peR8ix98YrU_IZ3K10c_rifuJzwSRa-K_fN5zG2KYTDxwEzPScCQxCZ-wR70ZEj49zQv2_cP1t6tPxc2Xj5-v3t8UVgrIBRpjoRRNLVXZSqUQnEAj7ba1tnSm68FJhLpqhCxNb5xTAB02dWfrbSsrIS_Yy6PvHMPPBVPWo08Wh8FMGJak27KthJA1gdURtDGkFLHXlMZIj2sQeq1Dr1nrNWutaK516FuSPT_5L9sR3T_RMX-6vzjdTbJm6KOZKLR7rIauEaoj7PKIIWVx5zHqZClEi85TTVm74P__x1_pU6s_</recordid><startdate>1992</startdate><enddate>1992</enddate><creator>Bonzheim, Scott C.</creator><creator>Franklin, Barry A.</creator><creator>DeWitt, Christopher</creator><creator>Marks, Charles</creator><creator>Goslin, Brian</creator><creator>Jarski, Robert</creator><creator>Dann, Sherry</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1992</creationdate><title>Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease</title><author>Bonzheim, Scott C. ; Franklin, Barry A. ; DeWitt, Christopher ; Marks, Charles ; Goslin, Brian ; Jarski, Robert ; Dann, Sherry</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-eaac120653927399e1d0ea3cb7cc2da8f1d3e1546032afadd9118e658c5b73403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Blood Pressure</topic><topic>Cardiology. Vascular system</topic><topic>Coronary Disease - physiopathology</topic><topic>Coronary Disease - psychology</topic><topic>Coronary heart disease</topic><topic>Exercise Test</topic><topic>Exercise Therapy</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Heart Rate</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oxygen Consumption</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Posture - physiology</topic><topic>Prescriptions</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Respiratory Function Tests</topic><topic>Space life sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bonzheim, Scott C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franklin, Barry A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeWitt, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goslin, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jarski, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dann, Sherry</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bonzheim, Scott C.</au><au>Franklin, Barry A.</au><au>DeWitt, Christopher</au><au>Marks, Charles</au><au>Goslin, Brian</au><au>Jarski, Robert</au><au>Dann, Sherry</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><date>1992</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>40</spage><epage>44</epage><pages>40-44</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><coden>AJCDAG</coden><abstract>To clarify the influence of body position on exercise prescription, 14 men (mean age ± standard deviation 60.0 ± 6.1 years) with coronary artery disease who underwent randomized recumbent and upright cycle ergometer tests to volitional fatigue were studied. At 100 watts, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, oxygen consumption (VO
2), rate pressure product and rating of perceived exertion were greater (p < 0.05) in the upright than in the recumbent position. At peak exercise, however, these variables were not significantly different. Regressions of relative HR versus VO
2 for recumbent and upright cycle ergometry were comparable: y = 1.24x − 32.7 and y = 1.26x − 31.5, respectively, where y = % maximal VO
2, and x = % maximal HR. These findings indicate that recumbent exercise prescriptions may be based on the peak HR and VO
2 values obtained during upright cycle ergometry, and vice versa. However, differences in the cardiorespiratory responses at submaximal exercise preclude the interchangeability of upright and recumbent training work rates.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>1729865</pmid><doi>10.1016/0002-9149(92)90673-M</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-9149 |
| ispartof | The American journal of cardiology, 1992, Vol.69 (1), p.40-44 |
| issn | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72740035 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Aged Biological and medical sciences Blood Pressure Cardiology. Vascular system Coronary Disease - physiopathology Coronary Disease - psychology Coronary heart disease Exercise Test Exercise Therapy Fatigue Heart Heart Rate Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Oxygen Consumption Perception Posture - physiology Prescriptions Regression Analysis Respiratory Function Tests Space life sciences |
| title | Physiologic responses to recumbent versus upright cycle ergometry, and implications for exercise prescription in patients with coronary artery disease |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T10%3A24%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Physiologic%20responses%20to%20recumbent%20versus%20upright%20cycle%20ergometry,%20and%20implications%20for%20exercise%20prescription%20in%20patients%20with%20coronary%20artery%20disease&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Bonzheim,%20Scott%20C.&rft.date=1992&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=44&rft.pages=40-44&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft.coden=AJCDAG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0002-9149(92)90673-M&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72740035%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72740035&rft_id=info:pmid/1729865&rft_els_id=000291499290673M&rfr_iscdi=true |