J Clin Pharmacol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Siconolfi, S.
Right arrow Articles by Barrows, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Siconolfi, S.
Right arrow Articles by Barrows, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Comparing the effects of two in-flight aerobic exercise protocols on standing heart rates and VO(2peak) before and after space flight

SF Siconolfi, JB Charles, Moore AD Jr, and LH Barrows

The effects of regular aerobic exercise on orthostatic tolerance have been the subject of a long-standing controversy that will influence the use of exercise during space flight. To examine these effects, astronauts performed continuous (CE) aerobic exercise (n = 8), interval (IE) aerobic exercise (n = 4), or no (NE) exercise (n = 5) during flights of 7 to 11 days. Heart rate (HR) responses to an orthostatic challenge (stand test) were measured 10 days before flight and on landing day. VO(2peak) (graded treadmill exercise) was measured 7 to 21 days before and 2 days after flight. No significant differences across the groups were observed in standing HRs before or after flight. However, the within-group mean HRs significantly increased in the NE (71-89 beats/min) and CE (60-85 beats/min) groups after space flight. The HRs for the IE group did not significantly increase (75-86 beats/min) after space flight. VO(2peak) decreased (P < .05) in the NE (-9.5%) group, but did not change in the CE (-2.4%) and IE (1%) groups. The relationship (r = 0.237) between the delta HR and delta VO(2peak) was not significant. These preliminary results indicate that: (1) continuous exercise does not affect the orthostatic HR response after space flight; (2) interval exercise may minimize an increase in the postflight orthostatic HR; and (3) both exercise protocols can maintain VO(2peak).
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
T. Trappe, S. Trappe, G. Lee, J. Widrick, R. Fitts, and D. Costill
Cardiorespiratory responses to physical work during and following 17 days of bed rest and spaceflight
J Appl Physiol, March 1, 2006; 100(3): 951 - 957.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American College of Clinical Pharmacology