No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
In vivo fascicle length of the gastrocnemius muscle during walking in simulated martian gravity using two different body weight support devices
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The European Space Agency has recently announced to progress from low Earth orbit missions on the International Space Station to other mission scenarios such as exploration of the Moon or Mars. Therefore, the Moon is considered to be the next likely target for European human space explorations. Compared to microgravity (μg), only very little is known about the physiological effects of exposure to partial gravity (μg < partial gravity <1 g). However, previous research studies and experiences made during the Apollo missions comprise a valuable source of information that should be taken into account when planning human space explorations to reduced gravity environments. This systematic review summarizes the different effects of partial gravity (0.1–0.4 g) on the human musculoskeletal, cardiovascular and respiratory systems using data collected during the Apollo missions as well as outcomes from terrestrial models of reduced gravity with either 1 g or microgravity as a control. The evidence-based findings seek to facilitate decision making concerning the best medical and exercise support to maintain astronauts' health during future missions in partial gravity. The initial search generated 1,323 publication hits. Out of these 1,323 publications, 43 studies were included into the present analysis and relevant data were extracted. None of the 43 included studies investigated long-term effects. Studies investigating the immediate effects of partial gravity exposure reveal that cardiopulmonary parameters such as heart rate, oxygen consumption, metabolic rate, and cost of transport are reduced compared to 1 g, whereas stroke volume seems to increase with decreasing gravity levels. Biomechanical studies reveal that ground reaction forces, mechanical work, stance phase duration, stride frequency, duty factor and preferred walk-to-run transition speed are reduced compared to 1 g. Partial gravity exposure below 0.4 g seems to be insufficient to maintain musculoskeletal and cardiopulmonary properties in the long-term. To compensate for the anticipated lack of mechanical and metabolic stimuli some form of exercise countermeasure appears to be necessary in order to maintain reasonable astronauts' health, and thus ensure both sufficient work performance and mission safety.
Background
To counteract microgravity (µG)-induced adaptation, European Space Agency (ESA) astronauts on long-duration missions (LDMs) to the International Space Station (ISS) perform a daily physical exercise countermeasure program. Since the first ESA crewmember completed an LDM in 2006, the ESA countermeasure program has strived to provide efficient protection against decreases in body mass, muscle strength, bone mass, and aerobic capacity within the operational constraints of the ISS environment and the changing availability of on-board exercise devices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a description of ESA’s individualised approach to in-flight exercise countermeasures and an up-to-date picture of how exercise is used to counteract physiological changes resulting from µG-induced adaptation. Changes in the absolute workload for resistive exercise, treadmill running and cycle ergometry throughout ESA’s eight LDMs are also presented, and aspects of pre-flight physical preparation and post-flight reconditioning outlined.
Results
With the introduction of the advanced resistive exercise device (ARED) in 2009, the relative contribution of resistance exercise to total in-flight exercise increased (33–46 %), whilst treadmill running (42–33 %) and cycle ergometry (26–20 %) decreased. All eight ESA crewmembers increased their in-flight absolute workload during their LDMs for resistance exercise and treadmill running (running speed and vertical loading through the harness), while cycle ergometer workload was unchanged across missions.
Conclusion
Increased or unchanged absolute exercise workloads in-flight would appear contradictory to typical post-flight reductions in muscle mass and strength, and cardiovascular capacity following LDMs. However, increased absolute in-flight workloads are not directly linked to changes in exercise capacity as they likely also reflect the planned, conservative loading early in the mission to allow adaption to µG exercise, including personal comfort issues with novel exercise hardware (e.g. the treadmill harness). Inconsistency in hardware and individualised support concepts across time limit the comparability of results from different crewmembers, and questions regarding the difference between cycling and running in µG versus identical exercise here on Earth, and other factors that might influence in-flight exercise performance, still require further investigation.
The hardware systems necessary to support exercise countermeasures to the deconditioning associated with microgravity exposure have evolved and improved significantly during the first decade of the International Space Station (ISS), resulting in both new types of hardware and enhanced performance capabilities for initial hardware items. The original suite of countermeasure hardware supported the first crews to arrive on the ISS and the improved countermeasure system delivered in later missions continues to serve the astronauts today with increased efficacy. Due to aggressive hardware development schedules and constrained budgets, the initial approach was to identify existing spaceflight-certified exercise countermeasure equipment, when available, and modify it for use on the ISS. Program management encouraged the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware, or hardware previously developed (heritage hardware) for the Space Shuttle Program. However, in many cases the resultant hardware did not meet the additional requirements necessary to support crew health maintenance during long-duration missions (3 to 12 mo) and anticipated future utilization activities in support of biomedical research. Hardware development was further complicated by performance requirements that were not fully defined at the outset and tended to evolve over the course of design and fabrication. Modifications, ranging from simple to extensive, were necessary to meet these evolving requirements in each case where heritage hardware was proposed. Heritage hardware was anticipated to be inherently reliable without the need for extensive ground testing, due to its prior positive history during operational spaceflight utilization. As a result, developmental budgets were typically insufficient and schedules were too constrained to permit long-term evaluation of dedicated ground-test units ("fleet leader" type testing) to identify reliability issues when applied to long-duration use. In most cases, the exercise unit with the most operational history was the unit installed on the ISS. Korth DW. Exercise countermeasure hardware evolution on ISS: the first decade. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015; 86(12, Suppl.):A7-A13.
This succinct and jargon-free introduction to effect sizes gives students and researchers the tools they need to interpret the practical significance of their results. Using a class-tested approach that includes numerous examples and step-by-step exercises, it introduces and explains three of the most important issues relating to the practical significance of research results: the reporting and interpretation of effect sizes (Part I), the analysis of statistical power (Part II), and the meta-analytic pooling of effect size estimates drawn from different studies (Part III). The book concludes with a handy list of recommendations for those actively engaged in or currently preparing research projects.
Statistical guidelines and expert statements are now available to assist in the analysis and reporting of studies in some biomedical disciplines. We present here a more progressive resource for sample-based studies, meta-analyses, and case studies in sports medicine and exercise science. We offer forthright advice on the following controversial or novel issues: using precision of estimation for inferences about population effects in preference to null-hypothesis testing, which is inadequate for assessing clinical or practical importance; justifying sample size via acceptable precision or confidence for clinical decisions rather than via adequate power for statistical significance; showing SD rather than SEM, to better communicate the magnitude of differences in means and nonuniformity of error; avoiding purely nonparametric analyses, which cannot provide inferences about magnitude and are unnecessary; using regression statistics in validity studies, in preference to the impractical and biased limits of agreement; making greater use of qualitative methods to enrich sample-based quantitative projects; and seeking ethics approval for public access to the depersonalized raw data of a study, to address the need for more scrutiny of research and better meta-analyses. Advice on less contentious issues includes the following: using covariates in linear models to adjust for confounders, to account for individual differences, and to identify potential mechanisms of an effect; using log transformation to deal with nonuniformity of effects and error; identifying and deleting outliers; presenting descriptive, effect, and inferential statistics in appropriate formats; and contending with bias arising from problems with sampling, assignment, blinding, measurement error, and researchers' prejudices. This article should advance the field by stimulating debate, promoting innovative approaches, and serving as a useful checklist for authors, reviewers, and editors.
Delving Deeper into NASA's DSH configurations and support craft
- C Gebhardt
C. Gebhardt, Delving Deeper into NASA's DSH configurations and support craft. (2012).
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated
- J P T Higgins
- S Green
J.P.T. Higgins, and S. Green, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011],
The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org, 2011.