Cardiorespiratory and Perceptual Responses to Arm Crank and Wheelchair Exercise Using Various Handrims in Male Paraplegics

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of 10-in [0.25-m] versus 16-in [0.41-m] wheelchair handrims on cardiorespiratory and psychophysiological exercise responses during wheelchair propulsion at selected velocities. Fifteen male paraplegics (27.0 +/- 5.5 yrs) performed three discontinuous exercise tests (ACE = arm crank ergometer; WERG = wheelchair roller ergometer) and two 1600-m performance-based track trials (TRACK) under simulated race conditions. There were no significant differences in HR, VO2, VE, HLa, or category-ratio ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) using different handrims during wheelchair propulsion at 4 km.h-1. In contrast, at 8 km.h-1 subjects demonstrated a 13% lower steady state VO2 (p less than .05) using the 10-in handrims, coincident with a 23% lower VE. Steady state HR during WERG at 8 km.h-1 using the 10-in (124.4 +/- 3.9 b.min-1) or 16-in (130.6 +/- 4.6 b.min-1) handrims were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences between ACE or WERG conditions during maximal effort for VO2 or VE. However, HRpeak during ACE was 7% higher than HRpeak during WERG16 (183 +/- 15 b.min-1 vs. 171 +/- 12 b.min-1, p less than .05), and whole blood HLa during ACE was also significantly higher (by 2.3-2.5 mmol; p less than .05) compared to WERG. There were no significant differences for HR, performance time, or RPE between trials using different handrim diameters during the 1600-m event.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of peak oxygen uptake and exercise efficiency between upper-body poling and arm crank ergometry in trained paraplegic and able-bodied participants

“…A higher VO 2peak may, therefore, be expected in UBP and wheelchair ergometry compared to ACE due to using more muscle mass. However, despite the differences in arm movement and the engagement of the trunk between ACE and wheelchair ergometry, some studies show no differences in VO 2peak values between these two modes (Arabi et al 1997 ; Gass et al 1995 ; Gayle et al 1990 ; Glaser et al 1980 ; Martel et al 1991 ; Price and Campbell 1999b ), whereas others report higher values in the wheelchair ergometry mode (Bloemen et al 2015 ; Gass and Camp 1984 ; Sawka et al 1980 ). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that wheelchair ergometry is less efficient than ACE (Glaser et al 1980 ; Hintzy et al 2002 ; Mukherjee and Samanta 2001 ).…”

Effects of Wheel and Hand-Rim Size on Submaximal Propulsion in Wheelchair Athletes

“…This was demonstrated by the elevated VO2 (reduced economy) and HR responses in the 24-inch condition compared with the 26-inch condition. When using fixed wheel sizes, smallerdiameter hand-rims have been shown to reduce these responses (14,37). However, the variations in gear ratio imposed by these investigations were likely to account for the increased physiological demand (33).…”

“…One final recommendation to guide future research in this area would be to explore the effects of different wheel sizes with different gear ratios. Although these are currently fixed within the wheelchair court sports, further benefits in physiological demand (14,33,37) and effectiveness of force application (33) have been observed through reductions in gear ratio.…”

“…From a theoretical perspective, the mechanical effects of adjusting wheel size are clear, with smaller wheels known to increase rolling resistance (20), When other areas of the wheelchair-user combination and propulsion velocity are controlled, increased rolling resistanee increases the external power output {P") for the user (36), Investigations into the effects of different hand-rim diameters have been conducted in relation to fixed wheel sizes (11,14,16,37) whereby rolling resistance and subsequently P" are likely to be unaffected. Despite this, increases in physiological demand were still established in larger hand-rim diameters (14,37).…”

“…Despite this, increases in physiological demand were still established in larger hand-rim diameters (14,37). This was thought to be due to the biomechanical adaptations evoked by the different gear ratios that are introduced when handrim diameter is manipulated in relation to fixed wheel sizes (16,33,37).…”