5 and 24 During the ECC exercise, the same measurements as during the CON exercise bout were taken. The pedaling work was derived from plantar pressure measurements as follows: the mean force applied to the pedals was obtained from the foot insoles; given that the crank length of the ergocycle was 175mm,
we used the following equation to obtain the mechanical work of each pedaling cycle: equation(1) W=(Fp×.175)×ΔαW=(Fp×.175)×Δαwhere Δα is the angle (rad) Nutlin3a during the time t (s) that the force Fp (N) was applied to the pedals. Mechanical power (PW) was then derived from W: equation(2) PW=dW/dtPW=dW/dtwhere t is time (s). Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 7.0.f Each test parameter was averaged and presented STA-9090 purchase as mean ± SD. Because of the exploratory nature of the study and the small number of patients, a nonparametric Friedman analysis of variance was performed to seek potential differences inside sessions (time effect). A nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples was then used to compare each variable among sessions. The Bonferroni correction was applied to Wilcoxon tests. P <.01 was considered significant for V˙o2, expired ventilation (Ve), Ve/ V˙o2, and heart rate. P<.016 was considered significant for CO and blood pressure. P<.05 was
considered significant for RPE, VAS, power output, mean work, and PF. All the exercise and testing procedures were well tolerated. ECC exercise tolerance very was found to be satisfactory in this study. During the following 24 hours, a small proportion of subjects (3/18) reported a low level of pain and lower limb muscle soreness (VAS <3), while none reported discomfort
after the CON exercise. However, none of the subjects reported muscle soreness 48 hours after the end of both exercises. For most of the participants, the perceived exertion was close to 7/8 (lowest score, 6) during ECC exercise, whereas the score was significantly higher during CON exercise and reached 12, as required by the procedure (P<.05). The subjects had no difficulty understanding the biofeedback instructions. However, the mean force applied to the ergocycle pedals was slightly, but not significantly, greater during the ECC exercise than during the CON exercise (118±59.7N vs 90.4±65.8N; P>.05). The mean work performed per pedaling cycle was 49.4±33.7J and 52.2±38.3J (P>.05) for ECC and CON exercises, respectively. Considering the difference in rotation speed (60 vs 15rpm in the CON and ECC exercises, respectively), the mean power was 26.5±9.1W (range, 11–46.8W) and 92.0±48.6W (range, 50–175W) for the ECC and CON exercises, respectively (P<.05). V˙o2 was different in the 2 conditions at each considered instant (P <.001), and was about 5 times greater than the mean resting value during CON exercise, while it was about twice the resting value during ECC ( fig 2A). A smaller, but significant difference (P <.001) was observed in Ve ( fig 2B).