Next Article in Journal
Predictors of E-Cigarette Use Susceptibility—A Study of Young People from a Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Rural Area in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
A Patented Rapid Method for Identification of Italian Diatom Species
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Intensity RAMP Incremental Test on Peak Power, Post-Exercise Blood Lactate, and Heart Rate Recovery in Males: Cross-Over Study

Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Physical Education, University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw, 35 Paderewskiego Street, 51-612 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(20), 3934; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203934
Submission received: 13 September 2019 / Revised: 4 October 2019 / Accepted: 15 October 2019 / Published: 16 October 2019

Abstract

:
Background: The linearly increased loading (RAMP) incremental test is a method commonly used to evaluate physical performance in a laboratory, but the best-designed protocol remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the selected variables used in training control resulting from the two different intensities of RAMP incremental tests. Methods: Twenty healthy and physically active men took part in this experiment. The tests included two visits to a laboratory, during which anthropometric measurements, incremental test on a cycle ergometer, and examinations of heart rate and blood lactate concentration were made. The cross-over study design method was used. The subjects underwent a randomly selected RAMP test with incremental load: 0.278 W·s−1 or 0.556 W·s−1. They performed the second test a week later. Results: Peak power output was significantly higher by 51.69 W (p < 0.001; t = 13.10; ES = 1.13) in the 0.556 W·s−1 group. Total work done was significantly higher in the 0.278 W·s−1 group by 71.93 kJ (p < 0.001; t = 12.55; ES = 1.57). Maximal heart rate was significantly higher in the 0.278 W·s−1 group by 3.30 bpm (p < 0.01; t = 3.72; ES = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rate recovery and peak blood lactate. Conclusions: We recommend use of the 0.556 W·s−1 RAMP protocol because it is of shorter duration compared with 0.278 W·s−1 and as such practically easier and of less effort for subjects.

1. Introduction

The incremental exercise test (with linearly increased loading) is a method commonly used to evaluate aerobic capacity in laboratory conditions [1]. It provides information on peak power output (PPO), maximal heart rate (HRmax), and peak blood lactate (La), which are commonly used as criteria for attaining maximal exertion [2,3]. The incremental exercise test also allows the assessment of heart rate recovery (HRR) [4,5,6]. The monitoring of changes in the above-mentioned parameters is used in training control regardless of the sports level. However, the test protocol can influence exertion and physiological parameters [7]. Therefore, the conditions which provide reliable and valid measures of maximal and submaximal physiological variables are still sought.
Previous research compared the influence of time throughout the incremental testing stages. In their research, Machado et al. [8] obtained higher maximal speed and post-exercise La and lower HRmax in an 11-min test (1-min stages) in comparison to 19- and 26-min tests (2- and 3-min stages, respectively). Thus, it is necessary to search for a test protocol which does not last long and in which the level of fatigue will not grow too rapidly, also in the initial phase of the test. This solution is provided through the inductive braking system of a cycle ergometer. The inductive braking system of the cycle ergometer enables changes in the slope of the load increase curve, which allows for finding new ways of testing physical performance, e.g., linearly increased loading (RAMP) protocols [9,10,11]. Our previous work confirmed the validity of the protocol with RAMP compared to the traditional STEP protocol in young road cyclists. In RAMP, the load was increased by 0.278 W·s−1 (equivalent to 50 W·3 min−1) and obtained higher peak power, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), and lower post-exercise blood lactate concentration [9]. However, heart rate did not differ compared to STEP. Both tests were carried out for approx. 24 min. According to some authors, the incremental test duration should amount to 8 to 12 min (VO2max measurements in particular) due to thermoregulatory loading and dehydration in longer tests [12,13,14]. This may lead to fatigue and the premature termination of the test, all of which results in not attaining maximal values for the tested parameters [7].
In addition to the previously mentioned PPO, HRmax, and La, examination of HRR can also be useful in monitoring response to training and programming training loads since there is no need of special equipment [15,16]. Post-exercise HRR drops to rest levels by reactivating the vagal nerve (parasympathetic nervous system). This may indicate functional disorders caused by fatigue, overtraining, or dehydration [15,16]. HRR is assessed by the absolute difference between the peak HR at the end of the exercise and HR after 60 s (HRR60) [17], which is a risk marker for cardiovascular mortality rate [18]. The impact of the load increase curve in RAMP on HRR in young, physically active males has not been yet investigated. Thus, it seems appropriate to verify if maximal exertion used in different linear protocols (RAMP) of incremental test changes physiological and biochemical responses, e.g., HRR.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the selected variables used in training control resulting from the two different intensities of RAMP incremental tests. The protocol was designed to induce fatigue after 8–12 min, thus a two-fold higher load increase was used compared to our previous study. It was hypothesized that the subjects would attain higher physiological and biochemical responses and quicker HR recovery in 0.556 W·s−1 protocol.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Subjects

There were twenty (n = 20) healthy and physically active men who volunteered for the study. The participants provided their written, informed consent to participate. The subjects were physically active students without professional training history. Weekly physical activity in the last month before the experiment was collected through a questionnaire. Each subject was familiarized with the experiment protocol. Table 1 presents the selected anthropometric parameters and weekly physical activity of the examined competitors.

2.2. Study Design

The tests included two visits to the laboratory during which anthropometric measurements, incremental testing on the cycle ergometer, and examination of heart rate and blood lactate concentration were made. The cross-over study design method was used. The subjects underwent one randomly selected RAMP test with incremental load: 0.278 W·s−1 or 0.556 W·s−1. A week later they performed the second test. During this 7-day interval, subjects were asked to carry on their normal activities and not to change any exercise habits. For 24 h before testing sessions, participants were instructed to avoid strenuous physical activity. The experiment was carried out in the Stress Research Laboratory (PN-EN ISO 9001: 2001). The experiment was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (1/2019) and the study’s design adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.3. Incremental Testing

Prior to testing, both body mass and height were assessed using a WPT 200 medical scale (Radwag, Radom, Poland). Percent fat mass (%FM) was determined by near-infrared interactance using a 6100/XL analyzer (Futrex Tech, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, USA) placed on the middle of the biceps brachii muscle of the dominant upper limb. The tests were performed on a stationary cycle ergometer Excalibur Sport (Lode BV, Groningen, The Netherlands).
The following load increase protocols were used (Figure 1):
(1)
Test 0.278 W·s−1—it started with 0 W load, which was increased linearly by ~0.278 W·s−1 which corresponds to 50 W·3 min−1.
(2)
Test 0.556 W·s−1—it started with 0 W load, which was increased linearly by ~0.556 W·s−1 which corresponds to 100 W·3 min−1.
The minimum cadence was 60 rotations per minute (rpm). The test was continued until volitional exhaustion. Heart rate (bpm—beats per minute) was continually monitored by telemetry with an S810 heart rate monitor (Polar, Kempele, Finland) to determine resting values, maximal heart rate (HRmax), and heart rate recovery (HRR). The measurements were carried out two minutes prior test start and continued 5 min after termination. During rest, the subjects were in a sitting position. Arterialized capillary blood was drawn from the fingertip immediately before and 3 min after the test to determine peak blood lactate concentration (La) (mmol·L−1) with photometric testing (Dr Lange 140 photometer: LP 400 Dr Lange, Berlin, Germany).
Maximal exertion was considered to be attained at the following criteria [2]: (1) La ≥ 8 (mmol·L−1); and (2) predicted HRmax ± 10 bpm from the formula (208–0.7∙age) introduced by Tanaka et al. [19] for healthy adults.

2.4. Statistics and Calculations

Heart rate was averaged over 15-s intervals. To calculate PPO (W) the values of the time of the test end were taken into consideration. The work done—Wtot (kJ)—was calculated on the basis of time and power output. This paper also presents heart rate values at loads of: 50 W, 100 W, 150 W, 200 W, and 250 W. HRR60 was calculated as the absolute difference between the HR measured at the time of termination of exercise and the HR in the 60 s of rest.
Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). Data were presented as means ( x ¯ ) and standard deviations (± SD). The distribution of the data set was screened for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Student’s t-test was used in the evaluation of the differences between test protocols. For selected parameters, Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient was calculated. The level of α < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Effect size (ES), that is Cohen’s d, was calculated in order to explore practical effect, using the following criteria: 0.1—trivial, 0.2—small, 0.5—medium, and 0.8—large.

3. Results

The test 0.278 W·s−1 was 8.5 min (p < 0.001; t = 28.31; ES = 4.14) longer than the second test. Peak power was significantly higher by 51.69 W (p < 0.001; t = 13.10; ES = 1.13) in the 0.556 W·s−1 test. The work done (Wtot) was significantly higher in the 0.278 W·s−1 test by 71.93 kJ (p < 0.001; t = 12.55; ES = 1.57). Maximal heart rate was significantly higher at 0.278 W·s−1 by 3.30 bpm (p < 0.01; t = 3.72; ES = 0.48) (Table 2). There were no differences in resting and peak blood lactate between the tests.
HR was significantly lower in 0.556 W·s−1 test for the intensity of 150 W by 7.05 bmp (p < 0.01; t = 3.09), 200 W by 7.70 bpm (p < 0.01; t = 3.12) and 250 W by 11.40 bpm (p < 0.001; t = 6.54) (Figure 2). There were no statistically significant differences in HRR60 between the tests.
%HRmax was significantly higher in 0.278 W·s−1 by 2.31% (p < 0.01, t = 3.09), by 2.60% (p < 0.01, t = 3.12) and by 4.36 (p < 0.001, t = 6.54) for intensity 150 W, 200 W, and 250 W, respectively (Table 3).
There was a statistically significant correlation between PPO (expressed as power per kilogram of body mass) and La for both tests: in the 0.278 W·s−1 test r = 0.52 (p < 0.05), while in the 0.556 W·s−1 test r = 0.67 (p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

This study succeeded in obtaining statistically significant higher peak power and lower work done in the test in which the power increased by 0.556 W·s−1. Moreover, there were no differences in the post-exercise lactate concentration in blood and rest values of heart rate. Times of the incremental test depended on the increase of intensity (slope of the load increase curve), with a greater slope shortening the time of work.
Peak power output (PPO) attained in endurance training strongly correlates with long-distance performance [20]. The results obtained in this research support our hypothesis and are consistent with those presented by Jamnick et al. [21]. They prove that the shorter time of incremental testing results in higher peak power. This may cause discrepancies in the determination of training intensity, e.g., HIIT interval training [22]. PPO values being higher by 15% in the 0.556 W·s−1 test may result from more efficient use of working muscles through a greater involvement of oxygen-dependent Type I fibers and a reduction in the involvement of Type II fibers in the initial phase of the test [23]. As a consequence, fatigue of Type II fibers does not occur prematurely and results in attaining higher PPO despite similar La concentration. On the one hand, no difference in La concentration may indicate a lack of greater involvement of aerobic metabolism. Conversely, the stronger correlation between La and PPO (r = 0.67) (expressed in kilograms per body mass) in the 0.556 W·s−1 test proves better efficiency of type II fibers under these conditions. It is consistent with the suggestion of Roffey et al. [24] regarding the lack of differences in the La concentration between tests. Different results, however, were presented by Machado et al. [8], who observed a significantly higher lactate concentration in the 11-min test as opposed to the 26-min test. But, the moment (in 5th min) at which blood lactate reached peak concentration after the incremental test, during passive recovery, was independent of the stage duration of the protocol. In our studies, the total work in the 0.278 W test was 66% of the total work obtained in the second test. This affects the physiological cost of work measured by the heart rate of work performed at sub-maximal power (50–250 W). The HR values were significantly lower in the 0.556 W·s−1 test at the intensity range of 150–250 W. Physiological responses to the same intensity of work during long-term efforts indicate higher physiological cost in comparison to short-term testing [24]. Yoon et al. [13] have suggested dehydration to be the main reason of increasing fatigue in longer tests.
Like peak power, heart rate (HR) expressed as a percentage of reserve of HRmax is often used to indicate aerobic training zones [24,25]. Therefore, it is known that differences in HRmax (as well as differences in physiological cost expressed in HR or %HRmax at work 50–250 W) lead to different intensity ranges in training (overestimation or underestimation). The results of our research proved that HRmax was higher in the longer test with a slower increase in intensity. This is in line with studies by Roffey et al. [24] and Bishop et al. [26], who have observed higher HRmax values for the longer incremental test. HRmax and La concentration met the criterion of attaining maximal exertion [2]. Moreover, if the difference between HRmax in the increase phase and the verification phase is ≤4 beats per minute, this is considered sufficient proof of maximal exertion [27]. Both tests carried out in this study met the mentioned criteria. Higher HR can be explained by the so-called cardiac drift caused by dehydration, which occurs during work lasting more than 10–15 min [28]. HR drifting upward may be connected with such factors as catecholamine and hyperthemia. This suggests that longer exercise increases metabolic cost and body temperature [29]. Boudet et al. [29] have claimed that long-lasting exercise stimulates the sympathetic nervous system, which causes additional rise in catecholamine concentration. It is possible that the use of an intermediate protocol with power set to 0.417 W·s−1 (75 W·3 min−1) and a work time of approx. 14–16 min would help to reach a compromise between the peak power and HR drift to obtain HRmax. Such an approach was represented by Machado et al. [8], who tested an incremental protocol with a 2-min test as an alternative to test durations of 1 and 3 min.
Post-exercise heart rate recovery has been studied by many researchers who evaluated the impact of many factors on the rate of HR decrease, such as: training status, fatigue, type of exercise, and age [30,31,32,33,34] However, HRR has never been evaluated after different types of incremental tests, which is commonly used to provoke maximal exertion [4]. We hypothesized that HRR after the 0.556 W·s−1 test, which was shorter and only 1/3 of the work was done, would be faster. However, the results obtained have proven that HRR does not depend on test protocol and time. The results are consistent with the suggestion of Suzic Lazic et al. [4], who have proven a minimal impact of the incremental test on the HRR. The possible explanation may be lack of differences in post-exercise La concentration. As stated by Buchheit et al. [35], effective HRR takes place due to lower glycolytic activity of muscles and higher oxidative capacity, accompanied by faster phosphocreatine resynthesis and faster regulation of acid–base balance. In another study by Buchheit et al. [36] it was found that, in addition to those factors mentioned above, the secretion of adrenaline was probably responsible for an increased background of the sympathetic activity of the autonomic nervous system. More detailed research is needed to explain the lack of differences in HRR after incremental testing. It should also include analysis of respiratory gases, acid–base balance, and hormone concentration.
Some limitations need to be addressed concerning the present study, despite the fact that the results were interesting. First is that the lack of measurements for maximal oxygen uptake, which is a universal indicator of the aerobic fitness in the incremental test [1,7]. This is necessary to check the tests used in this study based on the analysis of respiratory gases (ventilatory thresholds), and it should reference the maximal and sub-maximal values obtained in this test to the typical cycling efforts, e.g., individual time trials. This is necessary to determine the implicational value of measured variables. Future research should consider these suggestions, especially for athletes.

5. Conclusions

The most interesting result of this study was that the test with linearly increasing workload 0.556 W·s−1 allows to get higher values of PPO with a smaller amount of total work done compared to test 0.278 W·s−1. Interestingly, post-exercise blood lactate and heart rate recovery are independent of the intensity RAMP test protocol. In summary, we recommend use of the 0.556 W·s−1 RAMP protocol because it is of shorter duration compared with 0.278 W·s−1 and that way practically easier and of less effort for subjects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M., M.Z.; Methodology, K.M., N.D., M.Z.; Software, K.M., K.K., N.D., M.S., M.Z.; Validation, K.M., K.K., N.D., M.S., M.Z.; Formal Analysis, K.M., N.D., M.Z.; Investigation, K.M., K.K., N.D., M.S.; Resources, K.M., K.K., N.D., M.S.; Data Curation, K.M., K.K., N.D., M.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.M., N.D.; Writing—Review & Editing, K.M., M.Z.; Visualization, K.M., M.Z.; Supervision, M.Z.; Project Administration and Funding Acquisition, K.M., N.D., M.Z.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants engaged in this experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Beltz, N.M.; Gibson, A.L.; Janot, J.M.; Kravitz, L.; Mermier, C.M.; Dalleck, L.C. Graded exercise testing protocols for the determination of VO2max: Historical perspectives, progress, and future considerations. J. Sports Med. 2016, 3968393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Poole, D.C.; Wilkerson, D.P.; Jones, A.M. Validity of criteria for establishing maximal O2 uptake during ramp exercise tests. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 102, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Midgley, A.W.; McNaughton, L.R.; Polman, R.; Marchant, D. Criteria for determination of maximal oxygen uptake: A brief critique and recommendations for future research. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 1019–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Suzic Lazic, J.; Dekleva, M.; Soldatovic, I.; Leischik, R.; Suzic, S.; Radovanovic, D.; Djuric, B.; Nesic, D.; Lazic, M.; Mazic, S. Heart rate recovery in elite athletes: The impact of age and exercise capacity. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2017, 37, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Michalik, K.; Zatoń, M.; Hebisz, P.; Hebisz, R. Heart Rate and Oxygen Uptake Recovery and the Level of Aerobic Capacity in Mountain Bikers. Pol. J. Sport Tour. 2017, 24, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rutkowski, Ł.; Zatoń, M.; Michalik, K. Maximum oxygen uptake and Post-Exercise recovery in professional road cyclists. Hum. Mov. 2016, 17, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bentley, D.J.; Newell, J.; Bishop, D. Incremental exercise test design and analysis: Implcations for performance diagnostics in endurance athletes. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Machado, F.A.; Kravchychyn, A.C.P.; Peserico, C.S.; da Silva, D.F.; Mezzaroba, P.V. Effect of stage duration on maximal heart rate and Post-Exercise blood lactate concentration during incremental treadmill tests. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Michalik, K.; Danek, N.; Zatoń, M. Assessment of the physical fitness of road cyclists in the step and ramp protocols of the incremental test. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2019, 59, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adami, A.; Sivieri, A.; Moia, C.; Perinim, R.; Ferrettim, G. Effects of step duration in incremental ramp protocols on peak power and maximal oxygen consumption. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 2647–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zuniga, J.M.; Housh, T.J.; Camic, C.L.; Bergstrom, H.C.; Traylor, D.A.; Schmidt, R.J.; Johnson, G.O. Neuromuscular and metabolic comparisons between ramp and step incremental cycle ergometer tests. Muscle Nerve 2013, 47, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Poole, D.C.; Jones, A.M. Measurement of the maximum oxygen uptake VO2max: VO2peak is no longer acceptable. J. Appl. Physiol. 2017, 122, 997–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yoon, B.-K.; Kravitz, L.; Robergs, R. VO2max, Protocol Duration, and the VO2 Plateau. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 1186–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Buchfuhrer, M.J.; Hansen, J.E.; Robinson, T.E.; Sue, D.Y.; Wasserman, K.; Whipp, B.J. Optimizing the exercise protocol for cardiopulmonary assessment. J. Appl. Physiol. 1983, 55, 1558–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lamberts, R.P.; Swart, J.; Capostagno, B.; Noakes, T.D.; Lambert, M.I. Heart rate recovery as a guide to monitor fatigue and predict changes in performance parameters. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2010, 20, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Borresen, J.; Lambert, M.I. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 779–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peçanha, T.; Bartels, R.; Brito, L.C.; Paula-Ribeiro, M.; Oliveira, R.S.; Goldberger, J.J. Methods of assessment of the post-exercise cardiac autonomic recovery: A methodological review. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017, 227, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maddox, T.M.; Ross, C.; Ho, P.M.; Masoudi, F.A.; Magid, D.; Daugherty, S.L.; Peterson, P.; Rumsfeld, J.S. The prognostic importance of abnormal heart rate recovery and chronotropic response among exercise treadmill test patients. Am. Heart J. 2008, 156, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tanaka, H.; Monahan, K.D.; Seals, D.R. Age-Predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2001, 37, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bentley, D.J.; McNaughton, L.R. Comparison of Wpeak, VO2peak and the ventilation threshold from two different incremental exercise tests: Relationship to endurance performance. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2003, 6, 422–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jamnick, N.A.; Botella, J.; Pyne, D.B.; Bishop, D.J. Manipulating graded exercise test variables affects the validity of the lactate threshold and VO2peak. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Buchheit, M.; Laursen, P.B. High-Intensity interval training, solutions to the programming puzzle. Sports Med. 2013, 43, 927–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mauger, A.R.; Sculthorpe, N. A new VO2max protocol allowing self-pacing in maximal incremental exercise. Br. J. Sports Med. 2012, 46, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Roffey, D.M.; Byrne, N.M.; Hills, A.P. Effect of stage duration on physiological variables commonly used to determine maximum aerobic performance during cycle ergometry. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 1325–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Da Cunha, F.A.; Farinatti, P.D.T.V.; Midgley, A.W. Methodological and practical application issues in exercise prescription using the heart rate reserve and oxygen uptake reserve methods. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2011, 14, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bishop, D.; Jenkins, D.G.; Mackinnon, L.T. The effect of stage duration on the calculation of peak VO2 during cycle ergometry. J. Sci. Med. Sport 1998, 1, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Midgley, A.W.; Carroll, S.; Marchant, D.; McNaughton, L.R.; Siegler, J. Evaluation of true maximal oxygen uptake based on a novel set of standardized criteria. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2009, 34, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Coyle, E.F. Cardiovascular drift during prolonged exercise and the effects of dehydration. Int. J. Sports Med. 1998, 19, S121–S124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boudet, G.; Albuisson, E.; Bedu, M.; Chamoux, A. Heart rate running speed relationships during exhaustive bouts in the laboratory. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 29, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Otsuki, T.; Maeda, S.; Iemitsu, M.; Saito, Y.; Tanimura, Y.; Sugawara, J.; Ajisaka, R.; Miyauchi, T. Postexercise heart rate recovery accelerates in Strength-Trained athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Antelmi, I.; Chuang, EY.; Grupi, C.J.; Latorre, M.D.; Mansur, A.J. Heart rate recovery after treadmill electrocardiographic exercise stress test and 24-Hour heart rate variability in healthy individuals. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2008, 90, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Maeder, M.T.; Ammann, P.; Rickli, H.; Brunner-La Rocca, H.P. Impact of the exercise mode on heart rate recovery after maximal exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 105, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ostojic, S.M.; Markovic, G.; Calleja-Gonzalez, J.; Jakovljevic, D.G.; Vucetic, V.; Stojanovic, M.D. Ultra Short-Term heart rate recovery after maximal exercise in continuous versus intermittent endurance athletes. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2010, 108, 1055–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Daanen, H.A.; Lamberts, R.P.; Kallen, V.L.; Jin, A.; Van Meeteren, N.L. A systematic review on Heart-Rate recovery to monitor changes in training status in athletes. Int. J. Sports. Physiol. Perform. 2012, 7, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Buchheit, M.; Chivot, A.; Parouty, J.; Mercier, D.; Al Haddad, H.; Laursen, P.B.; Ahmaidi, S. Monitoring endurance running performance using cardiac parasympathetic function. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2010, 108, 1153–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Buchheit, M.; Al Haddad, H.; Laursen, P.B.; Ahmaidi, S. Effect of body posture on postexercise parasympathetic reactivation in men. Exp. Physiol. 2009, 94, 795–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Linearly increased loading (RAMP) incremental testing protocols utilized in this study (thin line—0.278 W·s−1; bold line—0.556 W·s−1).
Figure 1. Linearly increased loading (RAMP) incremental testing protocols utilized in this study (thin line—0.278 W·s−1; bold line—0.556 W·s−1).
Ijerph 16 03934 g001
Figure 2. The submaximal heart rate (HR) values in power 50–250 W. *—statistically significant difference between tests (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The submaximal heart rate (HR) values in power 50–250 W. *—statistically significant difference between tests (p < 0.05).
Ijerph 16 03934 g002
Table 1. Selected parameters of the tested males n = 20 ( x ¯ ± SD).
Table 1. Selected parameters of the tested males n = 20 ( x ¯ ± SD).
VariablesValue
Age (years)22.75 ± 2.88
Body height (cm)181.90 ± 4.95
BM (kg)79.73 ± 8.73
%FM (%)17.65 ± 3.73
Physical activity (h per week)9.13 ± 6.47
BM—body mass, %FM—percent fat mass.
Table 2. Variables attained in the incremental tests ( x ¯ ± SD).
Table 2. Variables attained in the incremental tests ( x ¯ ± SD).
Variables0.278 W·s−10.556 W·s−1
Time (min:s)20:29 ± 2:3611:47 ± 1:26 *
PPO (W)341.31 ± 43.33393.00 ± 47.79 *
PPO (W·kg−1)4.33 ± 0.725.01 ± 0.81 *
Wtot (kJ)212.89 ± 54.88140.96 ± 34.62 *
HRrest (bpm)87.62 ± 11.5690.16 ± 13.96
HRmax (bpm)196.05 ± 6.94192.75 ± 6.84 *
HRR60 (bpm)27.10 ± 9.8324.65 ± 6.88
La (mmol·L−1)13.05 ± 2.3013.01 ± 2.45
PPO—peak power output, Wtot—work done, HRrest—resting heart rate before the tests, HRmax—maximal heart rate, HRR60—heart rate recovery in the 60 s of rest, La—peak blood lactate, *—statistically significant difference between tests (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Percentage of maximal heart rate in submaximal intensities (50–250 W) ( x ¯ ± SD).
Table 3. Percentage of maximal heart rate in submaximal intensities (50–250 W) ( x ¯ ± SD).
Power (W)0.278 W·s−10.556 W·s−1
50 (%)57.69 ± 6.76 59.05 ± 6.64
100 (%)63.85 ± 7.1062.38 ± 6.69
150 (%)72.37 ± 7.3970.06 ± 7.03 *
200 (%)79.94 ± 8.5877.34 ± 7.18 *
250 (%)89.01 ± 5.7384.65 ± 6.35 *
*—statistically significant difference between tests (p < 0.05).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Michalik, K.; Korta, K.; Danek, N.; Smolarek, M.; Zatoń, M. Influence of Intensity RAMP Incremental Test on Peak Power, Post-Exercise Blood Lactate, and Heart Rate Recovery in Males: Cross-Over Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3934. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203934

AMA Style

Michalik K, Korta K, Danek N, Smolarek M, Zatoń M. Influence of Intensity RAMP Incremental Test on Peak Power, Post-Exercise Blood Lactate, and Heart Rate Recovery in Males: Cross-Over Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(20):3934. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203934

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michalik, Kamil, Kuba Korta, Natalia Danek, Marcin Smolarek, and Marek Zatoń. 2019. "Influence of Intensity RAMP Incremental Test on Peak Power, Post-Exercise Blood Lactate, and Heart Rate Recovery in Males: Cross-Over Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 20: 3934. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203934

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop