↓ Skip to main content

Eccentric Ergometer Training Promotes Locomotor Muscle Strength but Not Mitochondrial Adaptation in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eccentric Ergometer Training Promotes Locomotor Muscle Strength but Not Mitochondrial Adaptation in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norah J. MacMillan, Sophia Kapchinsky, Yana Konokhova, Gilles Gouspillou, Riany de Sousa Sena, R Thomas Jagoe, Jacinthe Baril, Tamara E. Carver, Ross E. Andersen, Ruddy Richard, Hélène Perrault, Jean Bourbeau, Russell T. Hepple, Tanja Taivassalo

Abstract

Eccentric ergometer training (EET) is increasingly being proposed as a therapeutic strategy to improve skeletal muscle strength in various cardiorespiratory diseases, due to the principle that lengthening muscle actions lead to high force-generating capacity at low cardiopulmonary load. One clinical population that may particularly benefit from this strategy is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as ventilatory constraints and locomotor muscle dysfunction often limit efficacy of conventional exercise rehabilitation in patients with severe disease. While the feasibility of EET for COPD has been established, the nature and extent of adaptation within COPD muscle is unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to characterize the locomotor muscle adaptations to EET in patients with severe COPD, and compare them with adaptations gained through conventional concentric ergometer training (CET). Male patients were randomized to either EET (n = 8) or CET (n = 7) for 10 weeks and matched for heart rate intensity. EET patients trained on average at a workload that was three times that of CET, at a lower perception of leg fatigue and dyspnea. EET led to increases in isometric peak strength and relative thigh mass (p < 0.01) whereas CET had no such effect. However, EET did not result in fiber hypertrophy, as morphometric analysis of muscle biopsies showed no increase in mean fiber cross-sectional area (p = 0.82), with variability in the direction and magnitude of fiber-type responses (20% increase in Type 1, p = 0.18; 4% decrease in Type 2a, p = 0.37) compared to CET (26% increase in Type 1, p = 0.04; 15% increase in Type 2a, p = 0.09). EET had no impact on mitochondrial adaptation, as revealed by lack of change in markers of mitochondrial biogenesis, content and respiration, which contrasted to improvements (p < 0.05) within CET muscle. While future study is needed to more definitively determine the effects of EET on fiber hypertrophy and associated underlying molecular signaling pathways in COPD locomotor muscle, our findings promote the implementation of this strategy to improve muscle strength. Furthermore, contrasting mitochondrial adaptations suggest evaluation of a sequential paradigm of eccentric followed by concentric cycling as a means of augmenting the training response and attenuating skeletal muscle dysfunction in patients with advanced COPD.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 43 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Sports and Recreations 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 53 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,884,291
of 25,890,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,562
of 15,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,515
of 326,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#34
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,890,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.