Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults

Santiago Lorenzo, Tony G. Babb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. Methods: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38% ± 5% body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39% ± 5% body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. Results: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43% ± 6% vs 40% ± 9% total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21% ± 4% vs 21% ± 4% TLC), or FVC (111% ± 13% vs 104% ± 15% predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV 1 (111% ± 13% vs 99% ± 11% predicted), TLC (106% ± 14% vs 94% ± 7% predicted), peak expiratory flow (123% ± 14% vs 106% ± 13% predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128% ± 15% vs 106% ± 13% predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129% ± 16% vs 86% ± 15% predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. Conclusion: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1330-1339
Number of pages10
JournalChest
Volume144
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Respiratory Mechanics
Total Lung Capacity
Exercise
Respiration
Lung
Ventilation
Adipose Tissue
Maximal Voluntary Ventilation
Work of Breathing
Oxygen
Functional Residual Capacity
Residual Volume
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults. / Lorenzo, Santiago; Babb, Tony G.

In: Chest, Vol. 144, No. 4, 10.2013, p. 1330-1339.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lorenzo, Santiago ; Babb, Tony G. / Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults. In: Chest. 2013 ; Vol. 144, No. 4. pp. 1330-1339.
@article{701b3db9e2104586996de3108dbad4f4,
title = "Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults",
abstract = "Background: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. Methods: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38{\%} ± 5{\%} body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39{\%} ± 5{\%} body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. Results: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43{\%} ± 6{\%} vs 40{\%} ± 9{\%} total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21{\%} ± 4{\%} vs 21{\%} ± 4{\%} TLC), or FVC (111{\%} ± 13{\%} vs 104{\%} ± 15{\%} predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV 1 (111{\%} ± 13{\%} vs 99{\%} ± 11{\%} predicted), TLC (106{\%} ± 14{\%} vs 94{\%} ± 7{\%} predicted), peak expiratory flow (123{\%} ± 14{\%} vs 106{\%} ± 13{\%} predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128{\%} ± 15{\%} vs 106{\%} ± 13{\%} predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129{\%} ± 16{\%} vs 86{\%} ± 15{\%} predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. Conclusion: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.",
author = "Santiago Lorenzo and Babb, {Tony G.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1378/chest.12-3022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "1330--1339",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults

AU - Lorenzo, Santiago

AU - Babb, Tony G.

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Background: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. Methods: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38% ± 5% body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39% ± 5% body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. Results: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43% ± 6% vs 40% ± 9% total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21% ± 4% vs 21% ± 4% TLC), or FVC (111% ± 13% vs 104% ± 15% predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV 1 (111% ± 13% vs 99% ± 11% predicted), TLC (106% ± 14% vs 94% ± 7% predicted), peak expiratory flow (123% ± 14% vs 106% ± 13% predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128% ± 15% vs 106% ± 13% predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129% ± 16% vs 86% ± 15% predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. Conclusion: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.

AB - Background: Alterations in respiratory mechanics predispose healthy obese individuals to low lung volume breathing, which places them at risk of developing expiratory flow limitation (EFL). The high ventilatory demand in endurance-trained obese adults further increases their risk of developing EFL and increases their work of breathing. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and magnitude of EFL in fit obese (FO) adults via measurements of breathing mechanics and ventilatory dynamics during exercise. Methods: Ten (seven women and three men) FO (mean ± SD, 38 ± 5 years, 38% ± 5% body fat) and 10 (seven women and three men) control obese (CO) (38 ± 5 years, 39% ± 5% body fat) subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing, pulmonary function testing, cycle exercise testing, and the determination of the oxygen cost of breathing during eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea. Results: There were no differences in functional residual capacity (43% ± 6% vs 40% ± 9% total lung capacity [TLC]), residual volume (21% ± 4% vs 21% ± 4% TLC), or FVC (111% ± 13% vs 104% ± 15% predicted) between FO and CO subjects, respectively. FO subjects had higher FEV 1 (111% ± 13% vs 99% ± 11% predicted), TLC (106% ± 14% vs 94% ± 7% predicted), peak expiratory flow (123% ± 14% vs 106% ± 13% predicted), and maximal voluntary ventilation (128% ± 15% vs 106% ± 13% predicted) than did CO subjects. Peak oxygen uptake (129% ± 16% vs 86% ± 15% predicted), minute ventilation (128 ± 35 L/min vs 92 ± 25 L/min), and work rate (229 ± 54 W vs 166 ± 55 W) were higher in FO subjects. Mean inspiratory (4.65 ± 1.09 L/s vs 3.06 ± 1.21 L/s) and expiratory (4.15 ± 0.95 L/s vs 2.98 ± 0.76L/s) flows were greater in FO subjects, which yielded a greater breathing frequency (51 ± 8 breaths/min vs 41 ± 10 breaths/min) at peak exercise in FO subjects. Mechanical ventilatory constraints in FO subjects were similar to those in CO subjects despite the greater ventilatory demand in FO subjects. Conclusion: FO individuals achieve high ventilations by increasing breathing frequency, matching the elevated metabolic demand associated with high fitness. They do this without developing meaningful ventilatory constraints. Therefore, endurance-trained obese individuals with higher lung function are not limited by breathing mechanics during peak exercise, which may allow healthy obese adults to participate in vigorous exercise training.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885144163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885144163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1378/chest.12-3022

DO - 10.1378/chest.12-3022

M3 - Article

C2 - 23722607

AN - SCOPUS:84885144163

VL - 144

SP - 1330

EP - 1339

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 4

ER -