Effect of variable loading in the determination of upper limb anaerobic power in persons with tetraplegia

Abstract

This article examines the effects of levels of resistance loading during arm Wingate Anaerobic Testing (WAnT) in persons with differing levels of cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Thirty-nine persons with motor-complete SCI tetraplegia (13 each at C5, C6, and C7) performed six bouts of armcrank WAnT with relative loads equivalent to 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 percent of body mass (BM). Power output was determined with the use of the SMI OptoSensor 2000 (Sports Medicine Industries, Inc., St. Cloud, MN, USA) hardware and software package. Values of peak power (P peak) and mean power (P mean) were examined statistically between groups (C5, C6, and C7) and across levels of resistance loading. Resistance loads that provided the greatest values of P mean for the three groups were as follows: C5 = 1.0 or 1.5 percent of BM; C6 = 1.5 or 2.0 percent of BM; and C7 = 2.5, 3.0, or 3.5 percent of BM. Appropriate loading for arm WAnT is specific to the level of tetraplegia and may provide a useful assessment of upper limb power production.

Comparison between the 10- and the 30-s-long Wingate Anaerobic Test in summer Paralympic athletes with a lower limb impairment

“…Among the latter, the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT), an all-out test in which the ergometer allows that the prefixed torque is maintained constant and the individual pedals at her/his maximal speed, has been adapted since the 1980s for individuals with locomotor impairments using arm cranking ergometers [24,25]. The WAnT has many versions, of which the 30-s-long test (WAnT_30s) has been applied most often in athletes and non-athletes with different physical impairments [6,22,23,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. On the other hand, shorter WAnT protocols have also been employed in studies dealing with high-level athletes with physical impairments [4,38].…”

Anaerobic exercise testing in rehabilitation: A systematic review of available tests and protocols

“…Protocols for upper-body anaerobic assessment were found using 2 different device types, arm crank ergometry (ACE) [ (17,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). Two protocols did not report resistance (24,33), where others scaled resistance to body mass [12 protocols] (17,(21)(22)(23)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), ranging from 1% in cervical SCI non-athletes up to 7.1% body mass in wheelchair athletes. One protocol in tetraplegic patients used no initial velocity (21), where initial velocity was set at maximum speed in 4 studies (24,(26)(27)(28).…”

“…Two protocols did not report resistance (24,33), where others scaled resistance to body mass [12 protocols] (17,(21)(22)(23)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), ranging from 1% in cervical SCI non-athletes up to 7.1% body mass in wheelchair athletes. One protocol in tetraplegic patients used no initial velocity (21), where initial velocity was set at maximum speed in 4 studies (24,(26)(27)(28). Two tests in paraplegic and tetraplegic patients, started when 25 or 100 revolutions per minute (rpm) was reached (29,31).…”

“…Two tests in paraplegic and tetraplegic patients, started when 25 or 100 revolutions per minute (rpm) was reached (29,31). The 30 s mWAnT was assumed to be reliable in patients with cervical SCI (28).…”

Upper Limb Rehabilitation System for Self-Supervised Therapy: Computer-Aided Daily Performance Evaluation for the Trauma and Disorder in the Spinal Cord and Peripheral Nerves

“…marker gain, was adjusted to the individual with trial and error. By applying Jacobs' result in (Jacobs et al, 2004) , where the peak and mean power loading differed from the level of injury and the subject's body mass, it would be superior to create a database to automate or ease the selection in the initial adjustment. Method based on evidence should be more reasonable for the medical staffs and would be a better interface than numerically or graphically setting the parameters.…”