MedDataX Logo

VO2peak and Exercise Efficiency in Upper-body Poling

NCT ID: NCT03284086

Last Updated: 2017-09-15

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

18 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-09-30

Study Completion Date

2017-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Spinal Cord Injuries

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

paraplegic

Well-trained participants with a spinal cord injury (\<Th1) were included in this group.

Group Type OTHER

upper-body double-poling

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the upper-body double-poling mode.

arm crank ergometry

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the arm crank ergometry mode.

able bodied

Upper-body trained, able-bodied participants were included in this group.

Group Type OTHER

upper-body double-poling

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the upper-body double-poling mode.

arm crank ergometry

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the arm crank ergometry mode.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

upper-body double-poling

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the upper-body double-poling mode.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

arm crank ergometry

An incremental peak test to exhaustion and four 5-min submaximal stages were performed in the arm crank ergometry mode.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

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
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

50 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

St. Olavs Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Jorunn Helbostad, phd prof

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Dept of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Centre for Elite Sports Research

Trondheim, , Norway

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Norway

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2015/2008

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id