ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2006
Comparisons of physiological and perceptual responses in healthy men and women during standardized arm cranking and task-specific pushing-pulling.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Assessments of the Upper Limb for Determining Fatigue, Strain and Effort from the Laboratory to the Industrial Working Place: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Perception of effort and the allocation of physical resources: A generalization to upper-limb motor tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Role of obesity on cerebral hemodynamics and cardiorespiratory responses in healthy men during repetitive incremental lifting.European journal of applied physiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePeak cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses in healthy men (n=11) and women (n=11) were compared during two different upper body exercise modes: standardized arm cranking and task-specific pushing-pulling.
methodsEach subject completed to volitional exhaustion both an incremental arm cranking and a pushing-pulling exercise continuously, in a random order, on two separate days. Physiological responses were monitored using an automated metabolic cart and a heart rate monitor, and the rating of perceived exertion was obtained using a 15-point Borg Scale.
resultsPeak oxygen uptake, oxygen pulse, respiratory exchange ratio, and ventilation rate were higher and total exercise time to exhaustion was lower during arm cranking compared to pushing-pulling (P<0.05). However, heart rate was similar between exercise modes (P>0.05). Men showed greater physiological responses (absolute oxygen uptake, oxygen pulse, and ventilation rate) and longer exercise time to exhaustion than women (P<0.05). Power output during arm cranking was higher (by 79%) than pushing-pulling (P<0.01), with men demonstrating 30% greater values during both exercise modes (P<0.01). The lower power output generated during pushing-pulling resulted in a greater ratio of peak oxygen uptake to power output (by 72%; P<0.05). Interestingly, although power output and oxygen uptake were lower at the maximal workload, perceived exertion was higher (by 5%) during pushing-pulling (P<0.05).
conclusionsBased on the physiological differences, pushing-pulling is found to be metabolically less efficient than arm cranking. However, greater ratings of perceived exertion during pushing-pulling implies that the perception of effort can also be influenced by a low intensity task, such as pushing-pulling, if performed for a prolonged period. Occupational health professionals should be aware of the limitations of utilizing physiological and perceptual responses obtained only from standardized ergometric protocols in predicting the workers' performance effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16437220What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.