Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD

Janos Varga, Janos Porszasz, K. Boda, Richard Casaburi, Attila Somfay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Endurance training is an effective component of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Controversy exists regarding whether different modalities of supervised exercise training (continuous (C) or interval (I)) or self-paced (S) programs are equally beneficial. Methods: Seventy-one patients with COPD (average FEV1=55% predicted) were assigned to 8 weeks of C, I or S training, 45 min/session, 3 times/week. Group C (n=22) exercised at 80% of pre-training peak work rate in an incremental cycle ergometer test. In group I (n=17), training consisted of 30 min of cycling 2 min at 90% followed by 1 min at 50% peak work rate bracketed by 7.5 min at 50% peak work rate. The S group (n=32) was instructed to cycle, climb stairs and walk in their home with the same periodicity and time intervals. Results: Improvement in incremental test peak work rate was significant in both C and I groups, but not in S. Peak oxygen uptake and lactic acidosis threshold improved significantly in the supervised groups, but differences among groups did not achieve significance. Scores in an activity questionnaire improved in all groups without significant differences among groups. Conclusions: In COPD patients, continuous and interval training have similar physiologic effects; by some measures of endurance exercise performance, they are superior to self-paced training. However, all were effective in improving patient-perceived activity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2297-2304
Number of pages8
JournalRespiratory Medicine
Volume101
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2007

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Exercise
Lactic Acidosis
Periodicity
Rehabilitation
Oxygen
Lung
High-Intensity Interval Training

Keywords

  • Breathing pattern
  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • Exercise capacity
  • Interval training
  • Lactic acidosis threshold

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD. / Varga, Janos; Porszasz, Janos; Boda, K.; Casaburi, Richard; Somfay, Attila.

In: Respiratory Medicine, Vol. 101, No. 11, 11.2007, p. 2297-2304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Varga, Janos ; Porszasz, Janos ; Boda, K. ; Casaburi, Richard ; Somfay, Attila. / Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD. In: Respiratory Medicine. 2007 ; Vol. 101, No. 11. pp. 2297-2304.
@article{c5173a4deff145da8d1ec2b07fd30519,
title = "Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD",
abstract = "Background: Endurance training is an effective component of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Controversy exists regarding whether different modalities of supervised exercise training (continuous (C) or interval (I)) or self-paced (S) programs are equally beneficial. Methods: Seventy-one patients with COPD (average FEV1=55{\%} predicted) were assigned to 8 weeks of C, I or S training, 45 min/session, 3 times/week. Group C (n=22) exercised at 80{\%} of pre-training peak work rate in an incremental cycle ergometer test. In group I (n=17), training consisted of 30 min of cycling 2 min at 90{\%} followed by 1 min at 50{\%} peak work rate bracketed by 7.5 min at 50{\%} peak work rate. The S group (n=32) was instructed to cycle, climb stairs and walk in their home with the same periodicity and time intervals. Results: Improvement in incremental test peak work rate was significant in both C and I groups, but not in S. Peak oxygen uptake and lactic acidosis threshold improved significantly in the supervised groups, but differences among groups did not achieve significance. Scores in an activity questionnaire improved in all groups without significant differences among groups. Conclusions: In COPD patients, continuous and interval training have similar physiologic effects; by some measures of endurance exercise performance, they are superior to self-paced training. However, all were effective in improving patient-perceived activity.",
keywords = "Breathing pattern, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Exercise capacity, Interval training, Lactic acidosis threshold",
author = "Janos Varga and Janos Porszasz and K. Boda and Richard Casaburi and Attila Somfay",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.rmed.2007.06.017",
language = "English",
volume = "101",
pages = "2297--2304",
journal = "Respiratory Medicine",
issn = "0954-6111",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD

AU - Varga, Janos

AU - Porszasz, Janos

AU - Boda, K.

AU - Casaburi, Richard

AU - Somfay, Attila

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - Background: Endurance training is an effective component of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Controversy exists regarding whether different modalities of supervised exercise training (continuous (C) or interval (I)) or self-paced (S) programs are equally beneficial. Methods: Seventy-one patients with COPD (average FEV1=55% predicted) were assigned to 8 weeks of C, I or S training, 45 min/session, 3 times/week. Group C (n=22) exercised at 80% of pre-training peak work rate in an incremental cycle ergometer test. In group I (n=17), training consisted of 30 min of cycling 2 min at 90% followed by 1 min at 50% peak work rate bracketed by 7.5 min at 50% peak work rate. The S group (n=32) was instructed to cycle, climb stairs and walk in their home with the same periodicity and time intervals. Results: Improvement in incremental test peak work rate was significant in both C and I groups, but not in S. Peak oxygen uptake and lactic acidosis threshold improved significantly in the supervised groups, but differences among groups did not achieve significance. Scores in an activity questionnaire improved in all groups without significant differences among groups. Conclusions: In COPD patients, continuous and interval training have similar physiologic effects; by some measures of endurance exercise performance, they are superior to self-paced training. However, all were effective in improving patient-perceived activity.

AB - Background: Endurance training is an effective component of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Controversy exists regarding whether different modalities of supervised exercise training (continuous (C) or interval (I)) or self-paced (S) programs are equally beneficial. Methods: Seventy-one patients with COPD (average FEV1=55% predicted) were assigned to 8 weeks of C, I or S training, 45 min/session, 3 times/week. Group C (n=22) exercised at 80% of pre-training peak work rate in an incremental cycle ergometer test. In group I (n=17), training consisted of 30 min of cycling 2 min at 90% followed by 1 min at 50% peak work rate bracketed by 7.5 min at 50% peak work rate. The S group (n=32) was instructed to cycle, climb stairs and walk in their home with the same periodicity and time intervals. Results: Improvement in incremental test peak work rate was significant in both C and I groups, but not in S. Peak oxygen uptake and lactic acidosis threshold improved significantly in the supervised groups, but differences among groups did not achieve significance. Scores in an activity questionnaire improved in all groups without significant differences among groups. Conclusions: In COPD patients, continuous and interval training have similar physiologic effects; by some measures of endurance exercise performance, they are superior to self-paced training. However, all were effective in improving patient-perceived activity.

KW - Breathing pattern

KW - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

KW - Exercise capacity

KW - Interval training

KW - Lactic acidosis threshold

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34748908839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34748908839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.06.017

DO - 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.06.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 17689948

AN - SCOPUS:34748908839

VL - 101

SP - 2297

EP - 2304

JO - Respiratory Medicine

JF - Respiratory Medicine

SN - 0954-6111

IS - 11

ER -