Differential pain response at local and remote muscle sites following aerobic cycling exercise at mild and moderate intensity

Physical exercise has been shown to inhibit experimental pain response in the post-exercise period. Modulation of the pain system may be differentiated between muscle sites engaging in contractile activity. The purpose of this study was to assess the pain response at remote and local muscle sites following aerobic exercise at different work intensities. Participants included 10 healthy and physically active males (mean age ± SD, 21.2 ± 3.4). Somatic pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the rectus femoris (local) and brachioradialis (remote) muscle site was measured at before (Pre), 5 min after (Post1), and 15 min after (Post2) aerobic cycling exercise at 70 and 30 % of peak oxygen uptake (VO(2peak)) performed on different occasions in a counterbalanced order, separated by minimum of 3 days interval. Repeated measures ANOVA for PPT reveals significant main effect for time (f = 3.581, p = 0.049, observed power = 0.588) and muscle site (f = 17.931, p = 0.002, observed power = 0.963). There was a significant interaction shown for exercise intensity by time (f = 11.390, p = 0.012, observed power = 0.790). PPT at rectus femoris following cycling exercise at 70 % of VO(2peak) reveals a significant increase between Pre-Post1 (p = 0.040). PPT for rectus femoris following cycling exercise at 30 % of VO(2peak) revealed a significant decrease between Pre-Post1 (p = 0.026) and Pre-Post2 (p = 0.008). The PPT for brachioradialis following cycling exercise at 30 % of VO(2peak) revealed a significant decrease between Pre-Post1 (p = 0.011) and Pre-Post2 (p = 0.005). These results show that aerobic exercise increases PPT locally at the exercise muscle site following exercise at 70 % of VO(2peak) but reduces PPT following exercise at 30 % of VO(2peak)

More than just ticking a box...how patient and public involvement improved the research design and funding application for a project to evaluate a cycling intervention for hip osteoarthritis

Background Involving patients and the public in research is an essential activity to ensure relevant, accessible, and appropriate research. There is increasing obligation from funding bodies on researchers to have well thought through plans for involving the public, and indeed it is often a condition for funding. Patient and public involvement activity in this project was conducted to inform a funding application to investigate the effectiveness of a cycling and education intervention in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Methods Six participants from a feasibility programme of the intervention attended a two-hour patient and public involvement consultation group to provide feedback on various aspects of the proposed research and intervention. During the consultation group, two independent facilitators followed a detailed plan formulated with the research team. Feedback was validated by the attendees via email following the consultation, and a report was issued to the research team. Further feedback on subsequent changes was sought via email and telephone with members of a Patient Advisory Group. Results The patient and public involvement consultation group provided invaluable feedback and suggestions which impacted on the design and quality of the research project and the intervention. Key changes to the intervention included extending the duration of the cycling programme from six to eight weeks, and inclusion of an exercise diary to promote adherence to the intervention. Key feedback regarding the design of the research and funding application included suggestions for methods of dissemination, and confirmation of the primary outcome measure. Conclusions Patient and public involvement was crucial to the design of the proposed research and intervention. It informed many aspects of the research design and made the funding application stronger as a result. Involving patients and the public in research is much more than an obligation, or ‘tick box’ exercise. It can change and improve research quality, which is crucial when answering questions that are meaningful and important to patients, and which leads to increased impact. Collaboration with patients and the public should be planned and reported from the conception of a research idea where the impact of such input can be considerable