(17) METABOLIC RESPONSES TO STAND-UP-PADDLE BOARD ERGOMETERY IN YOUNG NOVICES

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the metabolic efficacy of standup paddleboarding (SUP) ergometry as an exercise modality. Methods: Ten subjects with no previous experience with SUP volunteered, including 5 males (21.2±1.1y; 1.77±0.1m; 98.0±25.7kg, peakVO₂=38.0±3.5ml∙kg^-1∙min^-1) and 5 females (21.2±1.6y; 1.64±0.04m, 60.1±8.3kg, peakVO₂=32.5±3.7ml∙kg^-1∙min^-1). Each subject completed two sessions within one week. During the first session, subjects completed a one-minute peak power test on the SUP ergometer followed by a peak VO₂ test on a treadmill. During the second session, subjects completed a 10-minute test on the SUP ergometer and were asked to maintain a power 25% of their established peak. Metabolic data was collected via a metabolic cart and variables processed as 5s averages. Metabolic and ergometer output data were collected in one-minute increments, and four-time intervals were used for analysis: 0-1min, 3-4min, 6-7min, and 9-10min. These time-periods were labeled T1, T2, T3, and T4; respectively. To evaluate potential changes in metabolic rate and the intensity of the activity, exercising VO₂ was normalized to subjects’ previously established peak VO₂. Ventilation (VE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were measured and compared across the noted time intervals. Power, stroke rate, and stroke length provided by the SUP control panel were also compared across the time-periods. One-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to detect significant changes in the variables, and an R-squared analysis was performed to explain the variances between stroke variables. Results: Exercising VO₂ normalized to peak VO₂ differed significantly between T1 (0.33±0.08) and T2 (0.40±0.10; p=0.005) and T1 and T3 (0.44±0.15; p=0.05). All other time periods were similar. VE was also elevated in T2 (33.8±16.2L∙min^-1; p=0.006) and T3 (40.0±22.3L∙min^-1; p=0.018) compared to T1 (26.3±12.7L∙min^-1) but was similar at all other time periods. RER was elevated at T2 (0.87±0.06; p=0.002), T3 (0.90±0.05; p< 0.001), and T4 (0.89±0.08; p=0.0013) compared to T1. Although the participants were instructed to maintain power at 25% of peak power throughout the session, there was a difference between T1 (18.91±16.54W) and T2 (17.65±16.19W; p=0.005). There were no significant differences in stroke rate (25.9±8.27strokes∙min^-1; p=0.20) and length (1.96±0.30m; p=0.50) across the exercise bout. However, stroke length (p< 0.001) and rate (p< 0.001) were both associated with power. Stroke length and stroke rate explained 7% and 89% of the variance in power; respectively. Conclusions: Significant differences were found in metabolic variables and power output early in the exercise bout (T1 to T2) with these differences largely non-existent during the rest of the session. No significant differences were found in stroke rate and stroke length. The variability in power output from T1 to T2 may suggest a learning effect in the subjects that was not reflected in either the stroke rate or stroke length but perhaps in some altered kinematic patterns. Practical Applications: SUP ergometry is a metabolically effective form of exercise for novices, who tend to adapt quickly to the novel exercise device. SUP ergometry may provide a new and engaging form of exercise; but more data are needed to understand the effect of additional training variables on potential outcomes. Acknowledgements: None