Emtner M, Finne M, Stålenheim G
Department of Lung Medicine, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1998 Dec;30(4):201-9. doi: 10.1080/003655098443940.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether inactive asthmatic patients could perform high-intensity physical training equally well on land as in water, and to compare the effects of these training forms. Thirty-two adults with asthma, randomized into two groups, underwent a 10-week supervised rehabilitation program with emphasis on physical training. All patients, irrespective of training form, were able to exercise to maximal intensity (80-90% of estimated maximal heart rate). No asthmatic attacks occurred in connection with the training sessions. Respiratory variables remained almost unchanged in both groups. The asthma symptoms declined during the rehabilitation period, and the subjects needed less acute asthma care after the rehabilitation. The cardiovascular condition improved significantly and similarly in the two groups. Ten patients, 5 in each group, had exercise-induced asthma at the start of the rehabilitation. Only 3 patients, 2 from the water group and 1 from the land group, had exercise-induced asthma after 10 weeks. We conclude that indoor training, either on land or in water, is beneficial. The effects of these two training forms are almost equivalent.
本研究的目的是确定非活动性哮喘患者在陆地上进行高强度体育训练的效果是否与在水中一样好,并比较这两种训练形式的效果。32名成年哮喘患者被随机分为两组,接受了为期10周的有监督的康复计划,重点是体育训练。所有患者,无论训练形式如何,都能够运动到最大强度(估计最大心率的80-90%)。训练期间未发生哮喘发作。两组的呼吸变量几乎没有变化。康复期间哮喘症状有所减轻,康复后受试者所需的急性哮喘护理减少。两组的心血管状况均有显著且相似的改善。10名患者,每组5名,在康复开始时患有运动诱发性哮喘。10周后,只有3名患者患有运动诱发性哮喘,其中2名来自水疗组,1名来自陆地训练组。我们得出结论,在陆地上或水中进行室内训练都是有益的。这两种训练形式的效果几乎相同。