Effects of eccentric vs concentric cycling training on patients with moderate COPD

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

European Journal of Applied Physiology

Volume

122

First Page

489

Last Page

502

Publisher

Springer

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences / Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research / Exercise Medicine Research Institute

RAS ID

39875

Funders

CONICYT of Chile

Comments

Inostroza, M., Valdés, O., Tapia, G., Núñez, O., Kompen, M. J., Nosaka, K., & Peñailillo, L. (2022). Effects of eccentric vs concentric cycling training on patients with moderate COPD. European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 122, p. 489-502.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04850-x

Abstract

Purpose:

The present study compared the effects of eccentric cycling (ECC) and conventional concentric cycling (CONC) training on muscle function, body composition, functional performance, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods:

Twenty patients (age: 69.6 ± 10.1 years, forced expiratory volume in 1-s: 73.2 ± 11.4% of predicted) were randomly allocated to ECC (n = 10) or CONC (n = 10) group. They performed 12 weeks of ECC or CONC training at similar perceived exertion. The workload, heart rate (HR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and dyspnea were monitored during cycling. Outcomes measures included maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength of the knee extensors, rate of force development (RFD), lower limb fat-free (LLFFM) and fat (LLFM) mass, 6-min walking test (6MWT), timed up-and-go test (TUG), stairs ascending (SAWT) and descending walking time (SDWT), and QOL assessed by the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire.

Results:

ECC produced on average threefold greater (P < 0.001) workload (211.8 ± 106.0 kJ) than CONC (78.1 ± 62.6 kJ) over 34 training sessions. ECC showed 1.5 ± 2.1% greater SpO2, 24.7 ± 4.1% lower HR, and 64.4 ± 29.6% lower dyspnea in average than CONC (P < 0.001). ECC increased LLFFM (4.5 ± 6.2%; P = 0.03), while CONC decreased LLFM (3.3 ± 6.4%; P = 0.04) after training. Both ECC and CONC reduced (P < 0.05) SAWT (− 16.1 ± 9.3% vs − 10.1 ± 14.4%) and SDWT (− 12.2 ± 12.6% vs − 14.4 ± 14.7%), and improved (P < 0.05) QOL (33.4 ± 38.8 vs 26.1 ± 36.6%) similarly, but only ECC improved (P < 0.05) RFD (69–199%), TUG (13.6 ± 13.6%), and 6MWT (25.3 ± 27.7%).

Conclusion:

These results suggest that ECC training with less cardio-pulmonary demands was more effective in increasing functional performance and muscle mass for COPD patients than CONC training.

DOI

10.1007/s00421-021-04850-x

Access Rights

subscription content

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS