Limitations to high intensity exercise prescription in chronic heart failure patients.
BACKGROUND
Interval training is recommended for chronic heart failure patients (CHF), but specific guidelines on setting appropriate workloads have not been fully established. The aim of this study was to compare a traditional method of interval training prescription with a protocol specifically designed for CHF.


METHODS
Ten CHF and 7 healthy controls performed 2 maximal incremental cycle tests to determine interval training workload; a standard test (10Wmin(-)(1)) and a steep test (25W.10(-)(s)). Peak work rate and oxygen uptake (VO(2 peak)) were determined. Training workloads were defined as 100% standard test and 50% steep test peak work rate.


RESULTS
Training workload determined from the standard test was higher than from the steep test in healthy controls (151 ± 17W vs 118 ± 13W; P<0.01), whereas in CHF there was no significant difference between methods (88 ± 10W vs 96 ± 9W; P>0.05). Steep test VO(2peak) reached 91 ± 5% of standard test VO(2 peak) in controls, and 99 ± 4% in CHF, with no significant differences between tests in either group.


CONCLUSIONS
Prescribing interval training from a standard test results in higher workloads than from a steep test in healthy individuals, but in CHF both methods prescribe similar workloads. However it should not be assumed that the two tests can be used interchangeably for CHF. This small-sized study raises issues about interval training prescription that may be hypothesis-generating for future larger-scale studies.
Beale
Louisa
L
University of Brighton, United Kingdom. lb33@brighton.ac.uk
Silberbauer
John
J
Guy
Lloyd
L
Carter
Helen
H
Doust
Jo
J
Brickley
Gary
G
D000368:Aged; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D002908:Chronic Disease; D005080:Exercise Test / Q000379:methods*; D005081:Exercise Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D017079:Exercise Tolerance; D005260:Female; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male