↓ Skip to main content

Immediate Effects of Smoking on Cardiorespiratory Responses During Dynamic Exercise: Arm Vs. Leg Ergometry

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Immediate Effects of Smoking on Cardiorespiratory Responses During Dynamic Exercise: Arm Vs. Leg Ergometry
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00376
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chien-Liang Chen, Jing-Shia Tang, Ping-Chia Li, Pi-Ling Chou

Abstract

This study compared the immediate effects of smoking on cardiorespiratory responses to dynamic arm and leg exercises. This randomized crossover study recruited 14 college students. Each participant underwent two sets of arm-cranking (AC) and leg-cycling (LC) exercise tests. The testing sequences of the control trial (participants refrained from smoking for 8 h before testing) and the experimental trial (participants smoked two cigarettes immediately before testing) were randomly chosen. We observed immediate changes in pulmonary function and heart rate variability after smoking and before the exercise test. The participants then underwent graded exercise tests of their arms and legs until reaching exhaustion. We compared the peak work achieved and time to exhaustion during the exercise tests with various cardiorespiratory indices [i.e., heart rate, oxygen consumption (VO2), minute ventilation (VE)]. The differences between the smoking and control trials were calculated using paired t-tests. For the exercise test periods, VO2, heart rate, and VE values were calculated at every 10% increment of the maximal effort time. The main effects of the time and trial, as well as their trial-by-time (4 × 10) interaction effects on the outcome measures, were investigated using repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis. 5 min after smoking, the participants exhibited reduced forced vital capacities and forced expiratory volumes in the first second (P < 0.05), in addition to elevated resting heart rates (P < 0.001). The high-frequency, low-frequency, and the total power of the heart rate variability were also reduced (P < 0.05) at rest. For the exercise test periods, smoking reduced the time to exhaustion (P = 0.005) and the ventilatory threshold (P < 0.05) in the LC tests, whereas no significant effects were observed in the AC tests. A trend analysis revealed a significant trial-by-time interaction effect for heart rate, VO2, and VE during the graded exercise test (all P < 0.001). Lower VO2 and VE levels were exhibited in the exercise response of the smoking trial than in those of the control LC trials, whereas no discernable inter-trial difference was observed in the AC trials. Moreover, the differences in heart rate and VE response between the LC and AC exercises were significantly smaller after the participants smoked. This study verified that smoking significantly decreased performance and cardiorespiratory responses to leg exercises. However, the negative effects of smoking on arm exercise performance were not as pronounced.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 13 23%
Psychology 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 20 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,729,229
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,142
of 13,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,839
of 388,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#47
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 388,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.