| Title |
Investigation of cardiopulmonary exercise testing using a dynamic leg press and comparison with a cycle ergometer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13102-018-0095-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Farouk Chrif, Tobias Nef, Kenneth J. Hunt |
| Abstract |
Leg-press machines are widely employed for musculoskeletal conditioning of the lower-limbs and they provide cardiovascular benefits for resistance training in cardiac patients. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a dynamic leg press (DLP) for incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and to compare the results with those obtained using a cycle ergometer (CE). Twelve healthy participants aged 27±4 years (mean ± standard deviation) performed incremental cardiopulmonary exercise tests on a DLP and on a CE. To facilitate CPET, the DLP was augmented with force and angle sensors, a work rate estimation algorithm, and a visual feedback system. Gas exchange variables and heart rate were recorded breath-by-breath using a cardiopulmonary monitoring system. Peak oxygen uptake and peak heart rate were significantly lower for the DLP than for the CE: peak oxygen uptake was 3.2±0.5 vs. 4.1±0.5 L/min (DLP vs. CE,p=6.7×10-6); peak heart rate was 174±14 vs. 182±13 bpm (DLP vs. CE,p=0.0016). Likewise, the sub-maximal cardiopulmonary parameters, viz. the first and second ventilatory thresholds, and ramp duration were significantly lower for the DLP. The dynamic leg press was found to be feasible for CPET: the approach was technically implementable and all peak and sub-maximal cardiopulmonary parameters were able to be identified. The lower outcome values observed with the DLP can be attributed to a peripheral factor, namely the earlier onset of muscular fatigue. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 15% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#433
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#341,968
of 478,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 478,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.