Key result
Continuous plank exercise elicited significantly higher metabolic and cardiovascular responses, including a greater increase in %VO2max/kg (33.5 vs. 27.7) and %HRmax (63.2 vs. 53.3), compared to intermittent plank exercise.
Why the study?
Plank exercise application has been restricted because the metabolic and cardiovascular responses during multi-set isometric training protocols remain understudied, especially for patients with cardiovascular disease.
Does continuous plank exercise increase metabolic and cardiovascular responses compared to intermittent plank exercise in healthy young males?
Observational (n=11)
No
Does continuous plank exercise increase metabolic and cardiovascular responses compared to intermittent plank exercise in healthy young males?
Absolute Event Rate: 33.5% vs 27.7%
p-value: p=0.043
Continuous plank exercises elicit greater cardiovascular and metabolic stress than intermittent plank exercises, suggesting intermittent protocols may be safer for patients with cardiovascular diseases.
Plank exercise responses in CVD patients remain understudied; leaves open questions for safe clinical protocols.
Background: Plank exercise (PE) is a whole-body isometric muscle training which is beneficial for physical health. However, none of the previous studies investigated the responses within a typical isometric muscle training or PE protocol consisting of multiple sets. The application of PE was restricted for the understudied metabolic and cardiovascular responses, especially for the patients with cardiovascular diseases. This study is to compare the metabolic (ratio of maximal oxygen uptake per kilogram of body mass [%VO2max/kg] and respiratory exchange ratio [RER]) and cardiovascular (ratio of maximal heart rate [%HRmax] and blood pressure [BP]) responses between continuous (CPE) and intermittent plank exercises (IPEs).Methods: Eleven male recreational-level college students completed a baseline cardiopulmonary exercise test and two PEs; %VO2max/kg, %HRmax, and RER were continuously measured and divided into seven equal timepoints. BP was measured every minute during, before, and after PEs. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the interaction effect of exercise × phase.Results: The %VO2max/kg (F6,69=11.25, P<0.001), %HRmax (F6,65=7.74, P<0.001), RER (F6,69=11.56, P<0.001), and BP (systolic BP, F2,26=8.42, P=0.002; diastolic BP, F2,24=22.63, P<0.001) increased by safe magnitudes. Compared with the corresponding period in the IPE group, the %VO2max/kg (33.5 [2.2] vs. 27.7 [1.9], P=0.043) and %HRmax (63.2 [3.9] vs. 53.3 [2.1], P=0.019) increased more significantly from the 40% duration of CPE. Systolic BP increased by larger magnitudes during CPE than IPE (154.2 [3.8] vs. 142.3 [4.8] mmHg, P=0.002). RERs were >1 during PEs without cardiovascular and metabolic variables over the anaerobic threshold.Conclusions: Energy was mainly supplied by anaerobic metabolism during PEs. CPE may be preferable for trainees aiming at anaerobic capacity enhancement. IPEs may be preferable to CPEs for patients with cardiovascular diseases due to their lower metabolic and cardiovascular responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=11). Continuous plank exercise vs. Intermittent plank exercise (three 1-minute repetitions with 1-minute rest) was evaluated on %VO2max/kg at 80-100% of duration (95% CI 0.19-11.46, p=0.043). Continuous plank exercise elicited significantly higher metabolic and cardiovascular responses, including a greater increase in %VO2max/kg (33.5 vs. 27.7) and %HRmax (63.2 vs. 53.3), compared to intermittent plank exercise.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: