Metabolic and cardiorespiratory responses to continuous box lifting and lowering in nonimpaired subjects

Abstract

Study design: A within-subject experimental design.

Objectives: To compare the magnitude of metabolic and cardiorespiratory changes produced during box lifting and lowering among combinations of lift technique (leg lift and leg-torso lift) and lift weight (10.8 and 15.4 kg).

Background: Continuous box lifting and lowering can be used as an exercise in a low-back rehabilitation program. Awareness of the possible cardiovascular stress of this activity is important to the clinician because some patients may have existing cardiovascular pathologies or possess unknown risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Methods and measures: A group of 17 nonimpaired men 26 +/- 8 years of age (mean +/- SD) performed the 4 experimental trials on different days in a counterbalanced order determined by a Latin Square design. Lifting and lowering was performed for 6 continuous minutes at a rate of 12 cycles per minute. Physiologic variables were oxygen uptake, minute ventilation, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, metabolic equivalent, and rate-pressure product.

Results: There were stepwise increases in the values for oxygen uptake, minute ventilation, heart rate, metabolic equivalent, and rate-pressure product from the leg-torso lift to the leg lift and from 10.8 to 15.4 kg of weight within each lift technique (with the exception that minute ventilation and heart rate did not differ between the leg-torso lift at 15.4 kg and the leg lift at 10.8 kg). For the 4 lifts, values (mean +/- SD) varied from 20.3 +/- 5.4 to 28.8 +/- 5.8 mL x kg x min(-1) for oxygen uptake, 42.2 +/- 11.1 to 66.4 +/- 15.2 L x min(-2) for minute ventilation,129 +/- 20.6 to 156 +/- 16.5 beats x min(-1) for heart rate, 5.8 +/- 1.6 to 8.2 +/- 1.6 for metabolic equivalent, and 197 +/- 49.4 to 245 +/- 41.2 for rate-pressure product (x10(-2)).

Conclusion: The leg lift with the 15.4-kg weight produced the greatest physiologic stress. Because of the magnitude of the increase in the variables measured for all 4 types of lifts, clinicians should closely monitor patients' response to this type of exercise.