Voorn Eric L, Gerrits Karin H, Koopman Fieke S, Nollet Frans, Beelen Anita
Department of Rehabilitation, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 May;95(5):935-40. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.015. Epub 2014 Jan 31.
To determine whether the anaerobic threshold (AT) can be identified in individuals with postpolio syndrome (PPS) using submaximal incremental exercise testing, and to compare current guidelines for intensity prescription in PPS with the AT.
Cohort study.
Research laboratory.
Individuals with PPS (N=82).
Not applicable.
Power output, gas exchange variables, heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured in an incremental submaximal cycle ergometry test. Two independent observers identified the AT. Comparison of current guidelines for training intensity prescription in PPS (40%-60% heart rate reserve [HRR] or RPE of 12) with the AT was based on correlations between recommended heart rate and the heart rate at the AT. In addition, we determined the proportion of individuals that would have been recommended to train at an intensity corresponding to their AT.
The AT was identified in 63 (77%) of the participants. Pearson correlation coefficients between the recommended heart rate and the heart rate at the AT were lower in cases of 40% HRR (r=.56) and 60% HRR (r=.50) than in cases of prescription based on the RPE (r=.86). Based on the RPE, 55% of the individuals would have been recommended to train at an intensity corresponding to their AT. This proportion was higher compared with 40% HRR (41%) or 60% HRR (18%) as criterion.
The AT can be identified in most individuals with PPS offering an individualized target for aerobic training. If the AT cannot be identified (eg, because gas analysis equipment is not available), intensity prescription can best be based on the RPE.
通过次极量递增运动试验确定脊髓灰质炎后遗症(PPS)患者是否能识别无氧阈(AT),并将PPS当前的运动强度处方指南与无氧阈进行比较。
队列研究。
研究实验室。
PPS患者(N = 82)。
不适用。
在次极量递增式自行车测力计测试中测量功率输出、气体交换变量、心率和主观用力感觉评分(RPE)。两名独立观察者识别无氧阈。基于推荐心率与无氧阈时心率之间的相关性,将PPS当前的训练强度处方指南(心率储备[HRR]的40%-60%或RPE为12)与无氧阈进行比较。此外,我们确定了被推荐以与其无氧阈相对应的强度进行训练的个体比例。
63名(77%)参与者识别出了无氧阈。在心率储备40%(r = 0.56)和60%(r = 0.50)的情况下,推荐心率与无氧阈时心率之间的Pearson相关系数低于基于主观用力感觉评分(r = 0.86)的处方情况。基于主观用力感觉评分,55%的个体被推荐以与其无氧阈相对应的强度进行训练。与以心率储备40%(41%)或60%(18%)为标准相比,这一比例更高。
大多数PPS患者能够识别无氧阈,为有氧训练提供个性化目标。如果无法识别无氧阈(例如,因为没有气体分析设备),运动强度处方最好基于主观用力感觉评分。