Impact of cycling cadence on physiological response during a cardiopulmonary exercise test.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Ben Knox-Brown, Chris Harding, Shabana Chowdhury, Andrew Pritchard, Joanna Shakespeare, Karl Peter Sylvester
{"title":"Impact of cycling cadence on physiological response during a cardiopulmonary exercise test.","authors":"Ben Knox-Brown, Chris Harding, Shabana Chowdhury, Andrew Pritchard, Joanna Shakespeare, Karl Peter Sylvester","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The impact of cycling at different cadences on cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) measurements is poorly understood. We aimed to investigate whether higher cadences of pedalling led to meaningful changes in physiological endpoints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Study participants were recruited from healthy staff members working within three NHS trusts across England. At baseline, all participants completed a CPET at 60 rpm and then subsequently completed CPETs at cadences of 70, 80 and 90 rpm, allocated in a random order. To evaluate the mean differences in CPET measurements across the cadences, we used a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. We then performed post hoc pairwise comparisons with Tukey correction to account for multiple testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data collection took place between the 19 September 2023 and 9 April 2024. 25 participants had complete data at each cadence. 48% (12 of 25) were female, with a median (IQR) age of 30 years (27-41). There was no significant difference in peak V̇O<sub>2</sub> across the cadences. Maximum achieved work rate was significantly different across the cadences (p=<0.001). The highest wattage was achieved at 60 rpm (221.2 watts±71.4) and lowest at 90 rpm (210.4 watts, ±77.2). End exercise ventilation increased with increasing cadence (p=0.013), with a mean of 97.6 L/min (±28.3) at 60 prm and 107.0 L/min (±33.9) at 90 prm. Breathing reserve decreased with increasing cadence (p=0.009), with a mean of 45.6 L/min (±28.8) at 60 rpm and 35.1 L/min (±23.5) at 90 rpm. There were minimal differences in other CPET parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a healthy population, higher cycling cadences increased ventilatory demand and reduced maximum work rate. This could have implications for CPETs in the clinical setting, where physiological responses to higher cadences may be more exaggerated.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12001355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of cycling at different cadences on cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) measurements is poorly understood. We aimed to investigate whether higher cadences of pedalling led to meaningful changes in physiological endpoints.

Methods: Study participants were recruited from healthy staff members working within three NHS trusts across England. At baseline, all participants completed a CPET at 60 rpm and then subsequently completed CPETs at cadences of 70, 80 and 90 rpm, allocated in a random order. To evaluate the mean differences in CPET measurements across the cadences, we used a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. We then performed post hoc pairwise comparisons with Tukey correction to account for multiple testing.

Results: Data collection took place between the 19 September 2023 and 9 April 2024. 25 participants had complete data at each cadence. 48% (12 of 25) were female, with a median (IQR) age of 30 years (27-41). There was no significant difference in peak V̇O2 across the cadences. Maximum achieved work rate was significantly different across the cadences (p=<0.001). The highest wattage was achieved at 60 rpm (221.2 watts±71.4) and lowest at 90 rpm (210.4 watts, ±77.2). End exercise ventilation increased with increasing cadence (p=0.013), with a mean of 97.6 L/min (±28.3) at 60 prm and 107.0 L/min (±33.9) at 90 prm. Breathing reserve decreased with increasing cadence (p=0.009), with a mean of 45.6 L/min (±28.8) at 60 rpm and 35.1 L/min (±23.5) at 90 rpm. There were minimal differences in other CPET parameters.

Conclusion: In a healthy population, higher cycling cadences increased ventilatory demand and reduced maximum work rate. This could have implications for CPETs in the clinical setting, where physiological responses to higher cadences may be more exaggerated.

心肺运动试验中骑车节奏对生理反应的影响。
前言:不同节奏的骑行对心肺运动试验(CPET)测量的影响尚不清楚。我们的目的是研究更高的蹬车节奏是否会导致生理终点的有意义的变化。方法:研究参与者是从英格兰三家NHS信托机构的健康工作人员中招募的。在基线时,所有参与者以每分钟60转的速度完成CPET,然后以随机顺序以每分钟70、80和90转的节奏完成CPET。为了评估不同节奏CPET测量值的平均差异,我们使用了单向重复测量方差分析。然后,我们进行了事后两两比较,并进行了Tukey校正,以解释多重检验。结果:数据收集于2023年9月19日至2024年4月9日之间。25名参与者在每个节奏中都有完整的数据。25例患者中有12例(48%)为女性,中位(IQR)年龄为30岁(27-41岁)。在不同的节奏中,v_o2的峰值没有显著差异。最大达到的工作效率在不同的节奏之间存在显著差异(p=结论:在健康人群中,较高的骑行节奏增加了通气量需求,降低了最大工作效率。这可能会对临床环境中的cpet产生影响,在临床环境中,对较高节奏的生理反应可能更夸张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信