Dataset Information

Upper- vs. Lower-Body Exercise Performance in Female and Male Cross-Country Skiers.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To investigate the interaction between exercise modality (i.e., upper- and lower-body exercise) and sex in physiological responses and power output (PO) across the entire intensity spectrum (i.e., from low to maximal intensity). Methods: Ten male and 10 female cross-country (XC) skiers performed a stepwise incremental test to exhaustion consisting of 5 min stages with increasing workload employing upper-body poling (UP) and running (RUN) on two separate days. Mixed measures ANOVA were performed to investigate the interactions between exercise modalities (i.e., UP and RUN) and sex in physiological responses and PO across the entire exercise intensity spectrum. Results: The difference between UP and RUN (Δ_UP-RUN), was not different in the female compared with the male XC skiers for peak oxygen uptake (18 ± 6 vs. 18 ± 6 mL·kg^-1·min^-1, p = 0.843) and peak PO (84 ± 18 vs. 91 ± 22 W, p = 0.207). At most given blood lactate and rating of perceived exertion values, Δ_UP-RUN was larger in the male compared with the female skiers for oxygen uptake and PO, but these differences disappeared when the responses were expressed as % of the modality-specific peak. Conclusion: Modality-differences (i.e., Δ_UP-RUN) in peak physiological responses and PO did not differ between the female and male XC skiers. This indicates that increased focus on upper-body strength and endurance training in female skiers in recent years may have closed the gap between upper- and lower-body endurance capacity compared with male XC skiers. In addition, no sex-related considerations need to be made when using relative physiological responses for intensity regulation within a specific exercise modality.

SUBMITTER: Hansen LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8724206 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare the effects of upper versus the lower-body resistance exercise on cognitive and physical functions of institutionalized older people.MethodsThis was a non-randomized multi-center comparative and crossover study (clincialtrials.gov code NCT03831373). Two experimental groups performed a 12-week intervention of resistance exercises with low-intensity elastic bands, one program focused on exercises of the upper body (n = 20, mean age 87.6 ± 6.4 years, 75% women) and the other on the lower body (n = 29, mean age 81.4 ± 7.7 years, 55% women). Following 12 weeks of detraining, the groups performed the other intervention. After another 12 weeks, a follow-up assessment was carried. The control group (n = 19, mean age 81.3 ± 9.5, 68% women) performed a full body stretching exercise program in both phases. Before and after each period, cognitive and physical function was assessed by standardized test (Mini-Mental State Examination, Trail Making test and Phototest; Timed Up and Go, Back Scratch, Chair Sit and Reach and had grip strength, respectively). Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were carried.ResultsAfter the first intervention, significant improvements (p < 0.05) were observed in the cognitive function in both experimental groups, and in the hand grip strength in the group that performed lower-body exercise. After the second phase, all groups showed improvements in lower-body and shoulder flexibility and a significant worsening in hand grip strength. The lower-body exercise group showed a worsening in cognitive function, and the upper-body group in functional mobility and dynamic balance.ConclusionsResistance exercise with elastic bands showed beneficial effects on cognitive function and functional independence in institutionalized older adults. While upper body exercises seemed to be more effective on cognitive function, lower limb exercises showed better results on physical function parameters.

Dataset Information

Upper- vs. Lower-Body Exercise Performance in Female and Male Cross-Country Skiers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets