International Journal of Exercise Science 9(4): 419-426, 2016. The purpose of this study was to determine the cardiovascular responses during sustained power output comparing low cadence (LC) high force (HF) vs. high cadence (HC) Low force (LF) cycle ergometry. Nine participants (N = 9) volunteered for this study. Participants signed a Human Participants consent form. A power output of 150 watts (W) for 20 minutes was estimated as the sustainable workload. Participants were instructed to pedal steadily at 50 rpm (LC) or 100 rpm (HC) with resistance adjusted to sustain 150 W. The following measures were obtained each minute during the 20-minute protocol: average heart rate (b*min.-1), blood pressure (mmHg) and Rate Pressure Product (i.e. RPP= (SBP * HR)*100-1). Randomization was used to counterbalance both protocols (HC vs. LC) and demographic controls (N=9). Means and standard deviations (SD) were determined for age (36 ± 13.64 years), resting heart rate (68.83 ± 11.95 b*min-1), resting blood pressure (126.42 ± 13.27 mmHg), body fat percentage (male: 14.7 ± 4.3 %; female 20.6 ± 1.3 %) and height (157.80 ± 10.04 cm). A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA) was utilized to compare exercising values between test protocols. A Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient was utilized to determine bivariate associations between variables. A Tukey Post Hoc analysis was performed to analyze differences in LC HR and RPP. Statistical significance was set a priori at p < 0.05. There were statistical differences among LC ±HR (130.51 ± 3.36), HC HR (150.83±6.49), LC RPP (204.63± 11.45), and HC RPP (245.57±25.70) Between the HC and LC protocols, the use of HC protocol elicited an increase in HR and RPP.
CANIVEL, RANDY G. and Wyatt, Frank B.
"Cardiovascular Responses Between Low Cadence/High Force vs. High Cadence/Low Force Cycling,"
International Journal of Exercise Science:
4, Article 4.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol9/iss4/4