These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A physiological and biomechanical comparison of over-ground, treadmill and ergometer wheelchair propulsion.
    Author: Mason B, Lenton J, Leicht C, Goosey-Tolfrey V.
    Journal: J Sports Sci; 2014; 32(1):78-91. PubMed ID: 23879733.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of the study was to determine which laboratory-based modality provides the most valid physiological and biomechanical representation of over-ground sports wheelchair propulsion. Fifteen able-bodied participants with previous experience of wheelchair propulsion performed a 3-minute exercise trial at three speeds (4, 6 and 8 km ∙ h(-1)) in three testing modalities over separate sessions: (i) over-ground propulsion on a wooden sprung surface; (ii) wheelchair ergometer propulsion; (iii) treadmill propulsion at four different gradients (0%, 0.7%, 1.0% and 1,3%). A 0.7% treadmill gradient was shown to best reflect the oxygen uptake (7.3 to 9.1% coefficient of variation (CV)) and heart rate responses (4.9 to 6.4% CV) of over-ground propulsion at 4 and 6 km ∙ h(-1). A 1.0% treadmill gradient provided a more valid representation of oxygen uptake during over-ground propulsion at 8 km ∙ h(-1) (8.6% CV). Physiological demand was significantly underestimated in the 0% gradient and overestimated in the 1.3% gradient and wheelchair ergometer trials compared to over-ground trials (P<0.05). No laboratory-based modality provided a valid representation of the forces applied during OG (≥ 18.4% CV). To conclude, a 0.7% treadmill gradient is recommended to replicate over-ground wheelchair propulsion at lower speeds (4 and 6 km ∙ h(-1)) whereas a 1.0% gradient may be more suitable at 8 km ∙ h(-1).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]