3.8 Article

Comparison o respiratory muscle strength in individuals performing continuous and noncontinuous walking exercises in water after the 6-week program

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXERCISE REHABILITATION
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 566-570

出版社

KOREAN SOC EXERCISE REHABILITATION
DOI: 10.12965/jer.1938260.130

关键词

Walking in water; Respiratory muscle strength; Healthy males

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare respiratory muscle strength in individuals performing continuous and noncontinuous walking exercises in water after the 6-week program. Twenty-nine healthy men were randomly divided into a continuous group (CG, n=14) and a noncontinuous group (NG, n=15). Firstly, both groups executed the 6 week program which set them to walk for 30 min, 4 times per week, over 6 weeks in a pool with the adjusted intensity that their walking speed increased the heart rate to 60% of the predicted maximum, After the 6-week program, participants in the CG continued the water-walking program for 4 weeks while those in the NG discontinued the water-walking program. In both groups, respiratory muscle strength evaluated by maximum inspiratory pressure (Plmax) and maximum expiratory pressure (PEmax) increased significantly after the 6-week program compared with pre-exercise value. Compared to the value after the 6-week program, PEmax increased significantly in the CG after 10 weeks (P<0.05), but the Plmax showed no significant change. Compared to the value after the 6-week program, after 10 weeks, in the NG, PEmax decreased significantly, with a considerable decrease after 9 and 10 weeks compared to the CG (P< 0.05). The Plmax in the NG significantly decreased after 10 weeks from the value observed after the 6-week program. We demonstrated that 6 weeks of walking in water at 60% of the predicted maximum heart rate enhances Plmax and PEmax, and that Plmax and PEmax decrease in 4 weeks without a water-walking program.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据