Price M J, Campbell I G
School of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Greenwich, Woolwich, London, England.
Int J Sports Med. 1999 Oct;20(7):457-63. doi: 10.1055/s-1999-8831.
Seven wheelchair athletes participated in this study. On separate occasions all athletes performed 60 min of arm crank ergometry and wheelchair ergometry at 60% of the ergometer specific VO2peak in cool conditions (21.5+/-1.3 degrees C; 54.2+/-6.3% relative humidity, 21.2+/-1.9 degrees C; 55.5+/-11.9% relative humidity, respectively). The order of testing was randomised. Aural and skin temperatures were continually measured throughout the 60 min test. Expired air was collected at 5, 15, 30, 45, and 60 min during the exercise period. Oxygen consumption was similar for both trials (1.09+/-0.21 and 1.16+/-0.331 x min-(-1), for the ACE and WCE trials, respectively). Heat storage was calculated at these time-points. Aural temperature was elevated from rest between 25 to 45 min of wheelchair ergometry (0.5+/-0.3 degrees C; P < 0.05) when compared to between 20 min of exercise and 5 min of recovery (0.6+/-0.3 degrees C; P<0.05) during the arm crank ergometry trial. On the cessation of arm crank ergometry, heat storage was elevated above values observed at 5 min of exercise (P < 0.05). On the cessation of wheelchair ergometry, heat storage was not elevated above values at 5 minutes of exercise. Upper arm skin temperature was cooler during wheelchair ergometry when compared to arm crank ergometry (P<0.05). All other skin temperature responses were similar during both exercise modes. The efficiency of arm crank ergometry was greater than wheelchair ergometry throughout the exercise period (18.5+/-3.5 % and 8.9+/-3.7% at 60 minutes of exercise, respectively; P < 0.05). The results of this study suggest that although ACE demonstrates greater efficiency than WCE prolonged arm crank ergometry elicited greater thermal and physiological strain when compared with prolonged wheelchair ergometry. The lower thermal strain during WCE was suggested to be related to the propulsion biomechanics which may result in some degree of local cooling, and consequently heat dissipation, when compared to ACE. Due to the greater thermal strain during arm crank ergometry, it is recommended that for studies examining the exercise responses of wheelchair users wheel-chair ergometry should be employed.
七名轮椅运动员参与了本研究。在不同时间,所有运动员在凉爽环境(分别为21.5±1.3摄氏度;相对湿度54.2±6.3%,21.2±1.9摄氏度;相对湿度55.5±11.9%)下,以测力计特定VO2峰值的60%进行60分钟的手臂曲柄测力计运动和轮椅测力计运动。测试顺序是随机的。在整个60分钟的测试过程中持续测量耳温和皮肤温度。在运动期间的第5、15、30、45和60分钟收集呼出气体。两项试验的耗氧量相似(手臂曲柄测力计试验和轮椅测力计试验分别为1.09±0.21和1.16±0.331毫升·分钟-1)。在这些时间点计算热量储存。与手臂曲柄测力计试验中运动20分钟至恢复5分钟期间(0.6±0.3摄氏度;P<0.05)相比,轮椅测力计运动25至45分钟时耳温从静息状态升高(0.5±0.3摄氏度;P<0.05)。手臂曲柄测力计运动停止时,热量储存高于运动5分钟时观察到的值(P<0.05)。轮椅测力计运动停止时,热量储存未高于运动5分钟时的值。与手臂曲柄测力计运动相比,轮椅测力计运动期间上臂皮肤温度较低(P<0.05)。在两种运动模式下,所有其他皮肤温度反应相似。在整个运动期间,手臂曲柄测力计运动的效率高于轮椅测力计运动(运动60分钟时分别为18.5±3.5%和8.9±3.7%;P<0.05)。本研究结果表明,尽管手臂曲柄测力计运动比轮椅测力计运动效率更高,但与长时间轮椅测力计运动相比,长时间手臂曲柄测力计运动会引起更大的热和生理应激。与手臂曲柄测力计运动相比,轮椅测力计运动期间较低的热应激被认为与推进生物力学有关,这可能导致某种程度的局部冷却,从而散热。由于手臂曲柄测力计运动期间热应激更大,建议在研究轮椅使用者的运动反应时采用轮椅测力计运动。