Key result
Arm cycling elicits ~22% lower absolute mean V̇O2 but higher relative V̇O2 versus leg cycling.
Why the study?
Lower-body sprint interval exercise is not feasible for all adults and common use of all-out intensities presents a barrier for many adults, motivating comparison of physiological and perceptual responses to non-all-out sprint interval exercise using arm versus leg cycling.
Does arm cycle ergometry elicit different physiological and perceptual responses compared to leg cycle ergometry during non-all-out sprint interval exercise in active adults?
Does arm cycle ergometry elicit different physiological and perceptual responses compared to leg cycle ergometry during non-all-out sprint interval exercise in active adults?
Standardized Mean Difference: 1.08
Absolute Event Rate: 1.24% vs 1.59%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Non-all-out arm cycling sprint interval exercise elicits lower absolute but higher relative V̇O2 compared to leg cycling, with similar perceptual responses, suggesting it may be a feasible alternative for inactive adults.
Arm versus leg ergometry yields distinct VO2 responses; leaves open feasibility as alternative for inactive adults and requires prospective confirmation.
Increases in power output and maximal oxygen consumption (V̇˙O2max) occur in response to sprint interval exercise (SIE), but common use of “all-out” intensities presents a barrier for many adults. Furthermore, lower-body SIE is not feasible for all adults. We compared physiological and perceptual responses to supramaximal, but “non-all-out” SIE between leg and arm cycling exercise. Twenty-four active adults (mean ± SD age: [25 ± 7] y; cycling V̇˙O2max: [39 ± 7] mL·kg−1·min−1) performed incremental exercise using leg (LCE) and arm cycle ergometry (ACE) to determine V̇˙O2max and maximal work capacity (Wmax). Subsequently, they performed four 20 s (s) bouts of SIE at 130 % Wmax on the LCE or ACE at cadence = 120–130 rev/min, with 2 min (min) recovery between intervals. Gas exchange data, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (BLa), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and affective valence were acquired. Data showed significantly lower (p < 0.001) absolute mean ([1.24 ± 0.31] L·min−1 vs. [1.59 ± 0.34] L·min−1; d = 1.08) and peak V̇˙O2 ([1.79 ± 0.48] L·min−1 vs. [2.10 ± 0.44] L·min−1; d = 0.70) with ACE versus LCE. However, ACE elicited significantly higher (p < 0.001) relative mean ([62 % ± 9 %] V̇˙O2max vs. [57 % ± 7 %] V̇˙O2max, d = 0.63) and peak V̇˙O2 ([88 % ± 10 %] V̇˙O2max vs. [75 % ± 10 %] V̇˙O2max, d = 1.33). Post-exercise BLa was significantly higher ([7.0 ± 1.7] mM vs. [5.7 ± 1.5] mM, p = 0.024, d = 0.83) for LCE versus ACE. There was no significant effect of modality on RPE or affective valence (p > 0.42), and lowest affective valence recorded (2.0 ± 1.8) was considered “good to fairly good”. Data show that non “all-out” ACE elicits lower absolute but higher relative HR and V̇˙O2 compared to LCE. Less aversive perceptual responses could make this non-all-out modality feasible for inactive adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Astorino et al. (2024) studied Healthy active adults (n=24). Arm cycle ergometry (ACE) sprint interval exercise vs. Leg cycle ergometry (LCE) sprint interval exercise was evaluated on Absolute mean V̇O2 (d = 1.08, p=< 0.001). Non-all-out arm cycle ergometry elicited significantly lower absolute mean V̇O2 (1.24 vs 1.59 L/min; p<0.001) but higher relative mean V̇O2 compared to leg cycle ergometry in active adults.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: