Shuttle walk teste incremental realizado no corredor e na esteira: eles são intercambiáveis?

Comparou-se o desempenho no shuttle walk teste incremental realizado no corredor (SWTI-C) e na esteira (SWTI-E) em indivíduos saudáveis e comparar as respostas fisiológicas durante as sessões de treinamento aeróbio com as velocidades estimadas em ambos os testes. Trata-se de um estudo transversal com cinquenta e cinco participantes saudáveis. Os participantes foram randomizados para realizar os testes com 24 horas de intervalo. As sessões de treinamento foram realizadas na esteira com 75% da velocidade obtida no SWTI-C e no SWTI-E. As avaliações incluíram a distância da caminhada, consumo de oxigênio (VO2 ), produção de dióxido de carbono (VCO2 ), frequência cardíaca (FC) e ventilação (VE). Houve uma diferença significante entre as distâncias caminhadas (SWTI-E: 823,9 ± 165,2 m e SWTI-C: 685,4 ± 141,4 m), mas respostas fisiológicas semelhantes para o VO2 (28,6 ± 6,6 vs. 29,0 ± 7,3 ml-1.kg-1. min-1), VCO2 (1,9 ± 0,7 vs. 1,9 ± 0,5 1), HR (158,3 ± 17,8 vs. 158,6 ± 17,7 bpm) e VE (41,5 ± 10,4 vs. 43,7 ± 12,9 1). As velocidades estimadas foram diferentes para as sessões de treinamento (5,5 ± 0,5xkm/h e 4,9 ± 0,3 km/h), assim como o VO2 , VCO2 , VE e FC. Concluiu-se que em adultos jovens saudáveis, SWTI realizados no corredor e na esteira não são intercambiáveis. Uma vez que o SWTI-E determinou uma menor velocidade, a intensidade do treinamento baseada neste teste pode subestimar as respostas de um paciente ao treinamento aeróbio.Se trata de una comparación del rendimiento en la prueba incremental shuttle walk llevado a cabo en el pasillo (SWPI-P) y en la cinta caminadora (SWPC) entre individuos sanos, para evaluar las respuestas fisiológicas durante las sesiones de entrenamiento aeróbico con velocidades estimadas en ambas pruebas. Estudio transversal con 55 individuos sanos. A los participantes se les eligieron al azar para realizar las pruebas con intervalo de 24 horas. Se llevaron a cabo sesiones de entrenamiento en la cinta caminadora con el 75 % de la velocidad obtenida en SWPI-P y en SWPC. Se incluyen entre las evaluaciones la distancia de la caminata, el consumo de oxígeno (VO2 ), la producción de dióxido de carbono (VCO2 ), la frecuencia cardiaca (FC) y la ventilación (VE). Hubo una diferencia significativa entre las distancias recorridas (SWPC: 823,9 ± 165,2 m y SWPI-P: 685,4 ± 141,4 m), pero similares a las respuestas fisiológicas del VO2 (28,6 ± 6,6 vs. 29,0 ± 7,3 ml-1.kg-1. min-1), VCO2 (1,9 ± 0,7 vs. ± 1,9 0,5 1), HR (158,3 ± 17,8 vs. 158,6 ± 17,7 bpm) y VE (41,5 ± 10,4 vs. 43,7 ± 12,9 1). Las velocidades estimadas fueron diferentes en las sesiones de entrenamiento (5,5 ± 0,5 km/h y 4,9 ± 0,3 km/h), así como VO2 , VCO2, VE y FC. Se concluyó que, en los adultos jóvenes sanos, la SWPI llevada a cabo en el pasillo y en la cinta caminadora no pueden ser intercambiables. Dado que la SWPC determinó una menor velocidad, la intensidad de entrenamiento de esta prueba puede subestimar las respuestas de un paciente en el entrenamiento aeróbico.The performances of healthy individuals in an incremental shuttle walking test performed in a hallway (ISWT-H) and on a treadmill (ISWT-T) were compared to assess their physiological responses during aerobic training sessions with the speeds estimated from both tests. This was a cross-sectional study with 55 healthy subjects, who were randomized to perform the ISWT tests with 24 hours between them. Training sessions were held using a treadmill at 75% of the speeds obtained from the ISWT-H and ISWT-T. Measurements included walking distance, oxygen uptake (VO2 ), carbon dioxide (VCO2 ) production, heart rate (HR), and ventilation (VE). There was a significant difference between walking distances (ISWT-T: 823.9±165.2 m and ISWT-H:685.4±141.4 m), but similar physiological responses for VO2 (28.6±6.6 vs. 29.0±7.3 ml-1.kg-1.min-1), VCO2 (1.9±0.7 vs. 1.9±0.5 1), HR (158.3±17.8 vs. 158.6±17.7 bpm), and VE (41.5±10.4 vs. 43.7±12.9 1). The estimated speeds were different for the training sessions (5.5±0.5 km/h and 4.9±0.3 km/h), as well as the VO2 , VCO2 , VE, and HR. It was concluded that in healthy young adults, ISWTs carried out in a hallway and on a treadmill are not interchangeable. Since the ISWT-H was determined to have lower speed, the training intensity based on this test may underestimate a patient’s responses to aerobic training

Reference Equation for Respiratory Pressures in Pediatric Population: A Multicenter Study.

Previous studies have proposed only one prediction equation for respiratory muscle strength without taking into consideration differences between ages in pediatric population. In addition, those researches were single-center studies. The objective of this study was to establish reference equations for maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) and maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax) in children and teenagers. In a multicenter study, 450 healthy volunteers were evaluated (aged 6-18yrs). There were included volunteers with normal lung function. We excluded volunteers who could not perform the tests; participated in physical activity more than twice a week; were born prematurely; smokers; chronic respiratory, cardiologic, and/or neurologic diseases; had acute respiratory disease during the prior three weeks. The volunteers were divided into two groups: Group 6-11 (6-11yrs) and Group 12-18 (12-18yrs). PImax and PEmax were measured according to statement. The mean PImax value was 85.6 (95%IC 83.6-87.6 cmH2O), and PEmax 84.6 (95%IC 85.5-86.2 cmH2O). The prediction equations for PImax and PEmax for Group 6-11 were 37.458-0.559 + (age * 3.253) + (BMI * 0.843) + (age * gender * 0.985); and 38.556 + 15.892 + (age * 3.023) + (BMI * 0.579) + (age * gender * 0.881), respectively (R2 = 0.34 and 0.31, P<0.001). The equations for Group 12-18 were 92.472 + (gender * 9.894) + 7.103, (R2 = 0.27, P = 0.006) for PImax; and 68.113 + (gender * 17.022) + 6.46 + (BMI * 0.927), (R2 = 0.34, P<0.0001) for PEmax. This multicenter study determined the respiratory muscle strength prediction equations for children and teenagers

Scatter plot of respiratory muscles strength (PImax and PEmax) and age.

<p>Scatter plot of respiratory muscles strength (PImax and PEmax) and age.</p

Predictor variables for respiratory muscles (PImax and PEmax) obtained from multiple linear regression analysis.

<p>Gender = 0 for female, and 1 for male; BMI: body mass index = weight /height²</p><p>PImax: maximal inspiratory pressure; PEmax: maximal expiratory pressure.</p><p>Dummy 1: Southeast, Dummy 2: Center West, Dummy 3: South.</p><p>Predictor variables for respiratory muscles (PImax and PEmax) obtained from multiple linear regression analysis.</p

Characteristics of both groups (mean [95%CI]).

<p>BMI: body mass index; PImax: maximal inspiratory pressure; PEmax: maximal expiratory pressure.</p><p>*P< 0.0001 <i>vs</i> Group 6–11.</p><p>Characteristics of both groups (mean [95%CI]).</p