Does stepwise increment compared to continuous increment improve the reproducibility of cumulative work and hemodynamic response during maximal bicycle ergometer testing in healthy men?
Stepwise increment protocols during maximal bicycle ergometer testing offer better reproducibility for cumulative work compared to continuous increment protocols.
The reproducibility of physical capacity expressed as cumulative work (CW) and work pulse (WP) as well as haemodynamic response to maximal exercise was evaluated by two different principles for increasing work load during a maximal bicycle ergometer exercise test: (i) stepwise increment (SI) of 50 Watts (W) every fourth minute; (ii) continuous increment (CI) of 10 W at the end of every minute, both with a starting load of 50 W. Forty apparently healthy men aged 29-69 (mean 47) years performed two tests with a mean interval of 17 (3-43) days. Group A: 10 men who did SI twice; group B: 10 who repeated CI; group C: 10 men who performed SI and CI alternatively; group D: 10 men who did SI in the morning vs afternoon. Error % (percentage of the absolute difference of the mean of two values) was 3.9 for CW in group A vs 7.8 in group B (p<0.05). The error % of heart rates at submaximal work levels were lower with SI than CI. Mean CW in group C was 182.3±65.1 kJ for CI and 154.8±48.8 kJ for SI (p<0.01), whereas the mean exercise time was 1206±297 s and 1089±197 s respectively (p<0.01). Group D subjects achieved 142.7±49.4 kJ in the morning and 134.4±48.8 kJ in the afternoon (p<0.05). No significant differences were noted for WP in groups A-D.A better reproducibility for CW was found for SI, whereas both tests had similar reproducibility for heart rate and blood pressure response during maximal exercise.
S. Michelsen (Mon,) studied this question.