TY - JOUR
T1 - Ventilatory responses at peak exercise in endurance-trained obese adults
AU - Lorenzo, Santiago
AU - Babb, Tony G.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: This work was supported by the American Heart Association [11POST4920002], the National Institutes of Health [HL096782 to Dr Babb], the King Charitable Foundation Trust, an American Lung Association Career Investigator Award, an American Heart Association Grant in Aid, The Research and Education Institute at Texas Health Resources, the Cain Foundation, and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.
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
SN - 0012-3692
VL - 144
SP - 1330
EP - 1339
JO - CHEST
JF - CHEST
IS - 4
ER -