VO2peak and Exercise Efficiency in Upper-body Poling

September 13, 2017 updated by: Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Comparison of Peak Oxygen Uptake and Exercise Efficiency Between Upper-body Poling and Arm Crank Ergometry in Trained Paraplegic and Able-bodied Participants

This study compares peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency in upper-body poling versus arm crank ergometry in trained able-bodied and paraplegic participants.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and exercise efficiency are key factors for endurance performance. In persons who are primarily able to use their upper-body during exercise, such as many Paralympic athletes, the mode most commonly used in assessing VO2peak and efficiency is arm crank ergometry (ACE). However, sport-specificity of the test mode has been suggested to be of importance for achieving VO2peak and exercise efficiency that are reflective of the aerobic capacity in the respective sport. For ice sledge hockey players, cross-country sit skiers and sitting biathletes, upper-body poling (UP) is the most sport-specific test mode. However, it has not yet been investigated whether VO2peak and efficiency differ between ACE and UP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare VO2peak and exercise efficiency in upper-body poling versus arm crank ergometry in trained able-bodied and paraplegic participants. Participants performed four 5-min submaximal stages at increasing effort and an incremental peak test to exhaustion in both ACE and UP.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

18

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Trondheim, Norway
        • Centre for Elite Sports Research

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 50 years (ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • participants between the age of 18 and 50
  • well upper-body-trained participants with or without paraplegia

Exclusion Criteria:

  • people with injuries or sicknesses that might have impacted the testing

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: DIAGNOSTIC
  • Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
OTHER: paraplegic
Well-trained participants with a spinal cord injury (<Th1) were included in this group.
An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the upper-body double-poling mode.
An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the arm crank ergometry mode.
OTHER: able bodied
Upper-body trained, able-bodied participants were included in this group.
An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the upper-body double-poling mode.
An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the arm crank ergometry mode.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Peak oxygen uptake
Time Frame: 3 weeks
Peak oxygen uptake was measured during an incremental test to exhaustion.
3 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Study Director: Jorunn Helbostad, phd prof, Dept of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

September 1, 2016

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

May 1, 2017

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

May 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 13, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 13, 2017

First Posted (ACTUAL)

September 15, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

September 15, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 13, 2017

Last Verified

September 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2015/2008

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

All data will be de-identified by the project coordinator. The de-identified data will be stored on the NTNU server in a folder that only the JKB and ØS have access to. For analysing the data, parts of the de-identified data might be distributed amongst the four researchers and two master students linked to this study.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

September 2016-May 2017

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Spinal Cord Injuries

Clinical Trials on upper-body double-poling

Search Similar Trials