Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable?
Standard exercise testing (ET) comprises progressive exercise provocation with cardiovascular monitoring. Exercise tolerance is estimated by workload. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a non-invasive measurement of ventilatory gas exchange which provides more accurate quantifications of card...
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buchkapitel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 58 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 51 |
| container_title | |
| container_volume | 840 |
| creator | Preisser, A. M. Velasco Garrido, M. Bittner, C. Hampel, E. Harth, V. |
| description | Standard exercise testing (ET) comprises progressive exercise provocation with cardiovascular monitoring. Exercise tolerance is estimated by workload. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a non-invasive measurement of ventilatory gas exchange which provides more accurate quantifications of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Workload is usually increased stepwise in ET and continuously (ramp) in CPX. Our aim was to examine the comparability of the results. Thirty two healthy volunteers (17 females/15 males, age 26.8 ± 6.1 years, BMI 24.5 ± 3.0) underwent exercise testing on a bicycle ergometer up to maximum physical exhaustion; under ramp protocol (CPX) and 2–7 days later with a stepwise increase of workload (ET). We compared the physical work capacity under both methods at maximum workload, at heart rate of 150 and 170 beats/min (PWC150 and PWC170), and the exercise duration. We found that there were no statistically significant differences in the maximum heart rate (CPX: 177.1 ± 11.7/min vs. ET: 178.5 ± 11.2/min) or maximal workload (CPX: 219.8 ± 50.6 vs. ET: 209.4 ± 42.5). PWC150 and PWC150/kg were higher with CPX than those with ET (156.6 ± 51 vs. 146.4 ± 42.3, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/5584_2014_15 |
| format | Book Chapter |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_springer_books_10_1007_5584_2014_15</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>EBC1967968_68_58</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p289t-3f6a3a12c7fae3a84efd58c5d8bc5a75635b490c6245caf54b3c32090f3f93183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkM1Lw0AQxdfvVu3Ns-xZiO7XJLNeRIpWoSCIevGwbDabtpomcTc5-N-bYgVhYAbej8e8R8gZZ5ecsewKAJURjCvDYYccS8k1ZwIY7pKxEFwlyLjeIxOd4VZTGvfJmLEUEgEaD8kYdcY5YKpGZBLjB2OMSwTk6oiMBAhIpdRj8j4LtuhtRd98iH2k06buVnXfDOdj7YK30dOmpPPGFnRV07uwaNa-CytHX3zs4jW9DZ52S0-ffeyrbmOwbm2weeVvTslBaavoJ9t9Ql7v716mD8n8afY4vZ0nrUDdJbJMrbRcuKy0XlpUviwAHRSYO7DZ8CjkSjOXCgXOlqBy6aRgmpWy1JKjPCHnv75tn699YdqwWtvwbf5SDsDFLxAHqV74YPKm-YyGM7Op2_yve4DF1i00X_0Q0vgN7XzdBVu5pW27oSrDdZrpFM0wgPIHG0B52A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>book_chapter</recordtype><pqid>EBC1967968_68_58</pqid></control><display><type>book_chapter</type><title>Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Books</source><creator>Preisser, A. M. ; Velasco Garrido, M. ; Bittner, C. ; Hampel, E. ; Harth, V.</creator><contributor>Pokorski, Mieczyslaw</contributor><creatorcontrib>Preisser, A. M. ; Velasco Garrido, M. ; Bittner, C. ; Hampel, E. ; Harth, V. ; Pokorski, Mieczyslaw</creatorcontrib><description>Standard exercise testing (ET) comprises progressive exercise provocation with cardiovascular monitoring. Exercise tolerance is estimated by workload. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a non-invasive measurement of ventilatory gas exchange which provides more accurate quantifications of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Workload is usually increased stepwise in ET and continuously (ramp) in CPX. Our aim was to examine the comparability of the results. Thirty two healthy volunteers (17 females/15 males, age 26.8 ± 6.1 years, BMI 24.5 ± 3.0) underwent exercise testing on a bicycle ergometer up to maximum physical exhaustion; under ramp protocol (CPX) and 2–7 days later with a stepwise increase of workload (ET). We compared the physical work capacity under both methods at maximum workload, at heart rate of 150 and 170 beats/min (PWC150 and PWC170), and the exercise duration. We found that there were no statistically significant differences in the maximum heart rate (CPX: 177.1 ± 11.7/min vs. ET: 178.5 ± 11.2/min) or maximal workload (CPX: 219.8 ± 50.6 vs. ET: 209.4 ± 42.5). PWC150 and PWC150/kg were higher with CPX than those with ET (156.6 ± 51 vs. 146.4 ± 42.3, p < 0.001 and 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, respectively, p < 0.001). Exercise duration was almost equal (12.1 vs. 11.3 min). We conclude that overall physical performance was higher with CPX. Since the results are similar, we recommend the CPX: wattage and other parameters in performance assessment are to be determined directly, interpolations are obsolete.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0065-2598</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9783319102498</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 3319102494</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2214-8019</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 3319102508</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9783319102504</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/5584_2014_15</identifier><identifier>OCLC: 897115864</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25256339</identifier><identifier>LCCallNum: QP34-38</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anaerobic Threshold - physiology ; Cardiopulmonary exercise testing ; Cycle ergometer ; Exercise - physiology ; Exercise Test - methods ; Exercise Test - standards ; Exercise Tolerance - physiology ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; MEDICINE: GENERAL ISSUES ; Oxygen Consumption - physiology ; Oxygen uptake ; Physical Endurance - physiology ; Physical Fitness - physiology ; Physical work capacity ; Physiology ; Public health & preventive medicine ; Ramp protocol ; Sex Factors ; Standard exercise test ; Weight-Bearing - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2015, Vol.840, p.51-58</ispartof><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><relation>Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology</relation></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttps://ebookcentral.proquest.com/covers/1967968-l.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/5584_2014_15$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/5584_2014_15$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>775,776,780,789,27902,38232,41418,42487</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25256339$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Pokorski, Mieczyslaw</contributor><creatorcontrib>Preisser, A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Velasco Garrido, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bittner, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hampel, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harth, V.</creatorcontrib><title>Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable?</title><title>Advances in experimental medicine and biology</title><addtitle>Adv Exp Med Biol</addtitle><description>Standard exercise testing (ET) comprises progressive exercise provocation with cardiovascular monitoring. Exercise tolerance is estimated by workload. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a non-invasive measurement of ventilatory gas exchange which provides more accurate quantifications of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Workload is usually increased stepwise in ET and continuously (ramp) in CPX. Our aim was to examine the comparability of the results. Thirty two healthy volunteers (17 females/15 males, age 26.8 ± 6.1 years, BMI 24.5 ± 3.0) underwent exercise testing on a bicycle ergometer up to maximum physical exhaustion; under ramp protocol (CPX) and 2–7 days later with a stepwise increase of workload (ET). We compared the physical work capacity under both methods at maximum workload, at heart rate of 150 and 170 beats/min (PWC150 and PWC170), and the exercise duration. We found that there were no statistically significant differences in the maximum heart rate (CPX: 177.1 ± 11.7/min vs. ET: 178.5 ± 11.2/min) or maximal workload (CPX: 219.8 ± 50.6 vs. ET: 209.4 ± 42.5). PWC150 and PWC150/kg were higher with CPX than those with ET (156.6 ± 51 vs. 146.4 ± 42.3, p < 0.001 and 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, respectively, p < 0.001). Exercise duration was almost equal (12.1 vs. 11.3 min). We conclude that overall physical performance was higher with CPX. Since the results are similar, we recommend the CPX: wattage and other parameters in performance assessment are to be determined directly, interpolations are obsolete.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anaerobic Threshold - physiology</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary exercise testing</subject><subject>Cycle ergometer</subject><subject>Exercise - physiology</subject><subject>Exercise Test - methods</subject><subject>Exercise Test - standards</subject><subject>Exercise Tolerance - physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>MEDICINE: GENERAL ISSUES</subject><subject>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</subject><subject>Oxygen uptake</subject><subject>Physical Endurance - physiology</subject><subject>Physical Fitness - physiology</subject><subject>Physical work capacity</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Public health & preventive medicine</subject><subject>Ramp protocol</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>Standard exercise test</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0065-2598</issn><issn>2214-8019</issn><isbn>9783319102498</isbn><isbn>3319102494</isbn><isbn>3319102508</isbn><isbn>9783319102504</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>book_chapter</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>book_chapter</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkM1Lw0AQxdfvVu3Ns-xZiO7XJLNeRIpWoSCIevGwbDabtpomcTc5-N-bYgVhYAbej8e8R8gZZ5ecsewKAJURjCvDYYccS8k1ZwIY7pKxEFwlyLjeIxOd4VZTGvfJmLEUEgEaD8kYdcY5YKpGZBLjB2OMSwTk6oiMBAhIpdRj8j4LtuhtRd98iH2k06buVnXfDOdj7YK30dOmpPPGFnRV07uwaNa-CytHX3zs4jW9DZ52S0-ffeyrbmOwbm2weeVvTslBaavoJ9t9Ql7v716mD8n8afY4vZ0nrUDdJbJMrbRcuKy0XlpUviwAHRSYO7DZ8CjkSjOXCgXOlqBy6aRgmpWy1JKjPCHnv75tn699YdqwWtvwbf5SDsDFLxAHqV74YPKm-YyGM7Op2_yve4DF1i00X_0Q0vgN7XzdBVu5pW27oSrDdZrpFM0wgPIHG0B52A</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Preisser, A. M.</creator><creator>Velasco Garrido, M.</creator><creator>Bittner, C.</creator><creator>Hampel, E.</creator><creator>Harth, V.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing AG</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>FFUUA</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable?</title><author>Preisser, A. M. ; Velasco Garrido, M. ; Bittner, C. ; Hampel, E. ; Harth, V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p289t-3f6a3a12c7fae3a84efd58c5d8bc5a75635b490c6245caf54b3c32090f3f93183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>book_chapters</rsrctype><prefilter>book_chapters</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anaerobic Threshold - physiology</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary exercise testing</topic><topic>Cycle ergometer</topic><topic>Exercise - physiology</topic><topic>Exercise Test - methods</topic><topic>Exercise Test - standards</topic><topic>Exercise Tolerance - physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>MEDICINE: GENERAL ISSUES</topic><topic>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</topic><topic>Oxygen uptake</topic><topic>Physical Endurance - physiology</topic><topic>Physical Fitness - physiology</topic><topic>Physical work capacity</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Public health & preventive medicine</topic><topic>Ramp protocol</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>Standard exercise test</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Preisser, A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Velasco Garrido, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bittner, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hampel, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harth, V.</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Ebook Central - Book Chapters - Demo use only</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Preisser, A. M.</au><au>Velasco Garrido, M.</au><au>Bittner, C.</au><au>Hampel, E.</au><au>Harth, V.</au><au>Pokorski, Mieczyslaw</au><format>book</format><genre>bookitem</genre><ristype>CHAP</ristype><atitle>Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable?</atitle><btitle>Advances in experimental medicine and biology</btitle><addtitle>Adv Exp Med Biol</addtitle><seriestitle>Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology</seriestitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>840</volume><spage>51</spage><epage>58</epage><pages>51-58</pages><issn>0065-2598</issn><eissn>2214-8019</eissn><isbn>9783319102498</isbn><isbn>3319102494</isbn><eisbn>3319102508</eisbn><eisbn>9783319102504</eisbn><abstract>Standard exercise testing (ET) comprises progressive exercise provocation with cardiovascular monitoring. Exercise tolerance is estimated by workload. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a non-invasive measurement of ventilatory gas exchange which provides more accurate quantifications of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Workload is usually increased stepwise in ET and continuously (ramp) in CPX. Our aim was to examine the comparability of the results. Thirty two healthy volunteers (17 females/15 males, age 26.8 ± 6.1 years, BMI 24.5 ± 3.0) underwent exercise testing on a bicycle ergometer up to maximum physical exhaustion; under ramp protocol (CPX) and 2–7 days later with a stepwise increase of workload (ET). We compared the physical work capacity under both methods at maximum workload, at heart rate of 150 and 170 beats/min (PWC150 and PWC170), and the exercise duration. We found that there were no statistically significant differences in the maximum heart rate (CPX: 177.1 ± 11.7/min vs. ET: 178.5 ± 11.2/min) or maximal workload (CPX: 219.8 ± 50.6 vs. ET: 209.4 ± 42.5). PWC150 and PWC150/kg were higher with CPX than those with ET (156.6 ± 51 vs. 146.4 ± 42.3, p < 0.001 and 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, respectively, p < 0.001). Exercise duration was almost equal (12.1 vs. 11.3 min). We conclude that overall physical performance was higher with CPX. Since the results are similar, we recommend the CPX: wattage and other parameters in performance assessment are to be determined directly, interpolations are obsolete.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing AG</pub><pmid>25256339</pmid><doi>10.1007/5584_2014_15</doi><oclcid>897115864</oclcid><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0065-2598 |
| ispartof | Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2015, Vol.840, p.51-58 |
| issn | 0065-2598 2214-8019 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_springer_books_10_1007_5584_2014_15 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Books |
| subjects | Adult Anaerobic Threshold - physiology Cardiopulmonary exercise testing Cycle ergometer Exercise - physiology Exercise Test - methods Exercise Test - standards Exercise Tolerance - physiology Female Humans Male MEDICINE: GENERAL ISSUES Oxygen Consumption - physiology Oxygen uptake Physical Endurance - physiology Physical Fitness - physiology Physical work capacity Physiology Public health & preventive medicine Ramp protocol Sex Factors Standard exercise test Weight-Bearing - physiology Young Adult |
| title | Gradual Versus Continuous Increase of Load in Ergometric Tests: Are the Results Comparable? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T06%3A38%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Gradual%20Versus%20Continuous%20Increase%20of%20Load%20in%20Ergometric%20Tests:%20Are%20the%20Results%20Comparable?&rft.btitle=Advances%20in%20experimental%20medicine%20and%20biology&rft.au=Preisser,%20A.%20M.&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=840&rft.spage=51&rft.epage=58&rft.pages=51-58&rft.issn=0065-2598&rft.eissn=2214-8019&rft.isbn=9783319102498&rft.isbn_list=3319102494&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/5584_2014_15&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3EEBC1967968_68_58%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft.eisbn=3319102508&rft.eisbn_list=9783319102504&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=EBC1967968_68_58&rft_id=info:pmid/25256339&rfr_iscdi=true |