4.6 Article

A comparison of 2 circuit exercise training techniques for eliciting matched metabolic responses in persons with paraplegia

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages 201-209

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2002.28011

Keywords

exercise; paraplegia; rehabilitation; spinal cord injuries

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test whether acute metabolic (Vo(2)), chronotropic (heart rate), and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion; RPE) responses to exercise by persons With paraplegia differ when the exercise is on a multistation isoinertial exercise system (MultiGym) or on a customized system of Thera-Band(R) resistance bands (ElasticGym). Design: Within-subjects comparison of 2 treatments. Setting: Academic medical center. Participants: Sixteen men and 1 woman with complete paraplegia (T4-L1). as defined by the American Spinal Injury Association. Interventions: A circuit resistance training (CRT) program for persons with paraplegia was adapted to both a MultiGym and a customized ElasticGym. Exercises used for training and testing used 6 resistance maneuvers at 50% of the 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), with interposed rapid arm spinning. Subjects were habituated to both conditions for 2 weeks before testing on randomized nonconsecutive days. Main Outcome Measures: Vo(2) (L/min) was measured by portable spirometry, heart rate (beats/min) by a chest strap monitor, and RPE by the Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion (6-20). Results: No significant effects of test condition on average Vo(2) or heart rate were observed, with differences between conditions reflecting only .08L/min and 6.4 beats/min, respectively. Average RPE was significantly higher in testing under the ElasticGym condition (P <.05). Conclusions: CRT on a customized ElasticGym system elicited acute metabolic and chronotropic responses that did not differ from responses to exercise on a MultiGym, though RPE was greater with the ElasticGym.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available