Effects of eccentric vs concentric cycling training on patients with moderate COPD

Purpose The present study compared the effects of eccentric cycling (ECC) and conventional concentric cycling (CONC) training on muscle function, body composition, functional performance, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Twenty patients (age: 69.6 +/- 10.1 years, forced expiratory volume in 1-s: 73.2 +/- 11.4% of predicted) were randomly allocated to ECC (n = 10) or CONC (n = 10) group. They performed 12 weeks of ECC or CONC training at similar perceived exertion. The workload, heart rate (HR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), and dyspnea were monitored during cycling. Outcomes measures included maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength of the knee extensors, rate of force development (RFD), lower limb fat-free (LLFFM) and fat (LLFM) mass, 6-min walking test (6MWT), timed up-and-go test (TUG), stairs ascending (SAWT) and descending walking time (SDWT), and QOL assessed by the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire. Results ECC produced on average threefold greater (P < 0.001) workload (211.8 +/- 106.0 kJ) than CONC (78.1 +/- 62.6 kJ) over 34 training sessions. ECC showed 1.5 +/- 2.1% greater SpO(2), 24.7 +/- 4.1% lower HR, and 64.4 +/- 29.6% lower dyspnea in average than CONC (P < 0.001). ECC increased LLFFM (4.5 +/- 6.2%; P = 0.03), while CONC decreased LLFM (3.3 +/- 6.4%; P = 0.04) after training. Both ECC and CONC reduced (P < 0.05) SAWT (- 16.1 +/- 9.3% vs - 10.1 +/- 14.4%) and SDWT (- 12.2 +/- 12.6% vs - 14.4 +/- 14.7%), and improved (P < 0.05) QOL (33.4 +/- 38.8 vs 26.1 +/- 36.6%) similarly, but only ECC improved (P < 0.05) RFD (69-199%), TUG (13.6 +/- 13.6%), and 6MWT (25.3 +/- 27.7%). Conclusion These results suggest that ECC training with less cardio-pulmonary demands was more effective in increasing functional performance and muscle mass for COPD patients than CONC training.