ALBERT

Description: PURPOSE: Supine, moderate exercise is ineffective in maintaining orthostatic tolerance after bed rest (BR). Our purpose was to test the hypothesis that adding an orthostatic stress during exercise would maintain orthostatic function after BR. METHODS: Seven healthy men completed duplicate 15-d 6 degrees head-down tilt BR using a crossover design. During one BR, subjects did not exercise (CON). During another BR, subjects exercised for 40 min.d(-1) on a supine treadmill against 50-60 mm Hg LBNP (EX). Exercise training consisted of an interval exercise protocol of 2- to 3-min intervals alternating between 41 and 65% (.)VO(2max). Before and after BR, an LBNP tolerance test was performed in which the LBNP chamber was decompressed in 10-mm Hg stages every 3 min until presyncope. RESULTS: LBNP tolerance, as assessed by the cumulative stress index (CSI) decreased after BR in both the CON (830 +/- 144, pre-BR vs 524 +/- 56 mm Hg.min, post-BR) and the EX (949 +/- 118 pre-BR vs 560 +/- 44 mm Hg.min, post-BR) conditions. However, subtolerance (0 to -50 mm Hg LBNP) heart rates were lower and systolic blood pressures were better maintained after BR in the EX condition compared with CON. CONCLUSION: Moderate exercise performed against LBNP simulating an upright 1-g environment failed to protect orthostatic tolerance after 15 d of BR.

Description: INTRODUCTION: An interim resistance exercise device (iRED) was designed to provide resistive exercise as a countermeasure to spaceflight-induced loss of muscle strength and endurance as well as decreased bone mineral density. The purpose of this project was to compare foot-ground reaction force during iRED exercise in normal gravity (1 G) vs. microgravity (0 G) achieved during parabolic flight. METHODS: There were four subjects who performed three exercises (squat, heel raise, and deadlift) using the iRED during 1 G and 0 G at a moderate intensity (60% of maximum strength during deadlift exercise). Foot-ground reaction force was measured in the three orthogonal axes (x, y, z) using a force plate, and the magnitude of the resultant force vector was calculated (r = square root(x2 + y2 + z2)). Linear displacement (LD) was measured using a linear transducer. Peak force (Fpeak) and an index of total work (TWi) were calculated using a customized computer program. Paired t-tests were used to test if significant differences (p 〈 or = 0.05) were observed between 1 G and 0 G exercise. RESULTS: Fpeak and TWi measured in the resultant axis were significantly less in 0 G for each of the exercises tested. During 0 G, Fpeak was 42-46% and TWi was 33-37% of that measured during 1 G. LD and average time to complete each repetition were not different from 1 G to 0 G. CONCLUSIONS: Crewmembers who perform resistive exercises during spaceflight that include the movement of a large portion of their body mass will require much greater external resistive force during 0 G than 1 G exercise to provide a sufficient stimulus to maintain muscle and bone mass.

Description: Orthostatic tolerance may be defined as the ability of humans to maintain cerebral perfusion and consciousness upon movement from a supine or sitting position to the upright posture; for example, subjects can stand suddenly or be tilted to the head-up body position. Similar but not identical physiological responses can be induced by positive G(sub Z) (head to foot) acceleration or exposure to lower body negative pressure (LBNP). The objective is to suddenly shift blood to the lower body to determine how effectively cardiovascular and neural-hormonal compensatory responses react to maintain blood pressure. In the most precise method for measuring tolerance, individuals would be stressed until they faint (syncope). However, the potential consequences and discomforts of such a test usually prohibit such a procedure so that few investigators actually induce syncope. In a more common approach, subjects are exposed to a given level of stress, for example, head-up tilt for 15 min, and any increases in heart rate or decreases in blood pressure are interpreted as indicators of progress toward syncope. Presumably, the greater the perturbation of heart rate and blood pressure, the closer to "tolerance," i.e., point of unconsciousness. Another more appropriate approach is to induce a progressively increasing hypotensive stress until pre-determined physiological responses or pre-syncopal symptoms appear. The physiological criteria may include a sudden drop in systolic blood pressure (greater than 25 mm/min), a sudden drop in heart rate (greater than 15 beats/min), or a systolic blood pressure less than 70 mmHg. The most common pre-syncopal symptoms include lightheadedness, stomach awareness or distress, feelings of warmth, tingly skin, and light to profuse sweating. Usually a combination of physiological responses and symptoms occurs such that, on different days, the tolerance time to the same orthostatic protocol is reproducible for a given individual. The assumption is that by taking subjects to near fainting, one can determine their tolerance. This latter pre-syncopal approach is better for estimating orthostatic or hypotensive tolerance than the former measurement of heart rate and blood pressure responses to a given stress. There is considerable variability in individual responses to orthostasis. For example, some subjects are "heart-rate responders" and have a pronounced cardiovascular response similar to that when performing moderately hard aerobic exercise, whereas others may experience pre-syncopal symptoms with very little increase in heart rate. Some individuals have a slow, gradual fall in blood pressure to orthostasis, and others have little change in blood pressure until a sudden precipitous fall in pressure occurs just prior to fainting. With both tilt and LBNP tests there is a low correlation between heart-rate or blood-pressure responses to a sub-tolerance stress as a measure of pre-syncopal limited orthostatic-hypotensive tolerance.

Description: The importance of maintaining body temperature is well understood by both clinicians and lay persons. The normal, resting body core temperature is about 37 C (98.6 F), and death often occurs when it falls below 27 C (80.6 F) or exceeds 42 C (107.6 F). Thus, for survival the degree of overheating is more critical than that for overcooling. The lower limit of body core temperature for onset of heatstroke is usually only 41 C - 42 C (105.8 F - 107.6 F), but classic heatstroke has occurred with core body temperature as low as 40.6 (105.1 F). The physical effects of weightlessness on heat loss responses have not been well investigated; however, convective heat loss is greatly compromised and evaporative heat loss may also be impaired. These effects on convection and evaporation can be minimized by increasing air flow and reducing ambient humidity. The specific environments that crew members may be expected to encounter are described in this chapter.

Description: A unique, interim elastomer-based resistive exercise device (iRED) is being used on the International Space Station. PURPOSE: This study characterized iRED training responses in a 1-g environment by: 1) determining whether 16 wk of high-intensity training with iRED produces increases in muscle strength and volume and bone mineral density (BMD), 2) comparing training responses with iRED to free weights, and 3) comparing iRED training responses at two training volumes. METHODS: Twenty-eight untrained men were assigned to four groups of seven subjects each: a no exercise control group (CON), an iRED group who trained with three sets/exercise (iRED3), a free-weight group (FW) who trained with three sets/exercise, and an iRED group who trained with six sets/exercise (iRED6). Training exercises included squat (SQ), heel raise (HR), and dead lift (DL) exercises, 3 d.wk(-1) for 16 wk. RESULTS: For CON, no changes occurred pre- to posttraining. For iRED3, increases (P〈 or =0.05) in one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength (SQ 21 +/- 4%, HR 17 +/- 4%, DL 29 +/- 5%), leg lean mass (3.1 +/- 0.5%) by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and thigh (4.5 +/- 0.9%) and calf (5.9 +/- 0.7%) muscle volume (by magnetic resonance imaging) occurred after training with no changes in BMD (DXA). For FW, increases in 1-RM strength (SQ 22 +/- 5%, HR 24 +/- 3%, DL 41 +/- 7%), whole body (3.0 +/- 1.1%) and leg lean mass (5.4 +/- 1.2%), thigh (9.2 +/- 1.3%) and calf (4.2 +/- 1.0%) muscle volumes, and lumbar BMD (4.2 +/- 0.7%) occurred after training. For iRED6, all responses were similar to iRED3. CONCLUSION: High-intensity training with the iRED produced muscle responses similar to FW but was not effective in stimulating bone. Bed rest and spaceflight studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the iRED to prevent microgravity deconditioning.

Description: Current NASA flight rules limit the maximum cabin temperature (23.9 C) during re-entry and landing to protect crewmembers from heat stress while wearing the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES) and Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG). The primary purpose of this ground-based project was to determine whether the LCG could provide adequate cooling if ambient temperature reached 26.7 "C. The secondary objective was to determine whether there would be a graded effect of ambient temperature profiles with maximum temperatures of 23.9 (LO), 26.7 (MPD), and 29.4 C (HI). METHODS: Eight subjects underwent a 5-h temperature profile (22.8,26.7 C) in an environmental chamber while wearing the ACES and LCG. Subjects controlled the amount of cooling provided by the LCG. Core (T(sub core)),skin temperatures (T(sub sk)) and heart rate (HR) were measured every 15-min. A 10-minute stand test was administered pre- and post-chamber. Additionally, 4 subjects underwent the three 5-h temperature profiles (LO, MID, and HI) with the same measurements. RESULTS: In the 8 subjects completing the MID profile, T(sub core), and T(sub sk) decreased from the start' to the end of the chamber stay. Subjects completed the stand test without signs of orthostatic intolerance. In the 4 subjects who underwent all 3 profiles, there was no discernible pattern in T(sub core), T(sub sk), and HR responses across the temperature profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In the range of temperatures tested, subjects were able to sufficiently utilize the self-selected cooling to avoid any potential deleterious effects of wearing the ACES. However, these subjects were not microgravity exposed, which has been suggested to impair thermoregulation.

Description: In a previous study from our laboratory, we observed carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulation in the helmet of the NASA Launch and Entry Suit (LES) during a simulated emergency egress from the Space Shuttle. Eight of 12 subjects were unable to complete the egress simulation with a G-suit inflation pressure of 1.5 psi. The purpose of this report was to compare CO2 accumulation and egress walking time in the new Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES) with that in the LES.

Description: This investigation's purpose was to determine the amount of heat produced when performing aerobic and resistance exercises planned as part of the exercise countermeasures prescription for the ISS. These data will be used to determine thermal control requirements of the Node 1 and other modules where exercise hardware might reside. To determine heat production during resistive exercise, 6 subjects using the iRED performed 5 resistance exercises which form the core exercises of the current ISS resistive exercise countermeasures. Each exerciser performed a warm-up set at 50% effort, then 3 sets of increasing resistance. We measured oxygen consumption and work during each exercise. Heat loss was calculated as the difference between the gross energy expenditure (minus resting metabolism) and the work performed. To determine heat production during aerobic exercise, 14 subjects performed an interval, cycle exercise protocol and 7 subjects performed a continuous, treadmill protocol. Each 30-min. exercise is similar to exercises planned for ISS. Oxygen consumption monitored continuously during the exercises was used to calculate the gross energy expenditure. For cycle exercise, work performed was calculated based on the ergometer's resistance setting and pedaling frequency. For treadmill, total work was estimated by assuming 25% work efficiency and subtracting the calculated heat production and resting metabolic rate from the gross energy expenditure. This heat production needs to be considered when determining the location of exercise hardware on ISS and designing environmental control systems. These values reflect only the human subject s produced heat; heat produced by the exercise hardware also will contribute to the heat load.

Description: The treadmill with vibration isolation system (TVIS) was developed to counteract cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and neurovestibular deconditioning during long-duration missions to the International Space Station (ISS). However, recent hardware failures have necessitated the development of a short-term, temporary contingency exercise countermeasure for TVIS until nominal operations could be restored. The purpose of our evaluation was twofold: 1) to examine whether a slick-plate/contingency exercise surface (CES) could be used as a walking/running surface and could elicit a heart rate (HR) greater than or equal to 70% HR maximum and 2) to determine the optimal hardware configuration, in microgravity, to simulate running/walking in a 1-g environment. One subject (male) participated in the slick surface evaluation and two subjects (one male, one female) participated in the microgravity evaluation of the slick surface configuration. During the slick surface evaluation, the subject was suspended in a parachute harness and bungee cord configuration to offset the subject#s body weight. Using another bungee cord configuration, we added a vertical load back to the subject, who was then asked to run for 20 minutes on the slick surface. The microgravity evaluation simulated the ISS TVIS, and we evaluated two different slick surfaces (Teflon surface and an aluminum surface coated with Tufram) for use as a CES. We evaluated each surface with the subject walking and running, with and without a handrail, and while wearing either socks or nylon booties over shoes. In the slick surface evaluation, the subject ran for 20 minutes and reached a maximum HR of 170 bpm. In the microgravity evaluation, the subjects chose the aluminum plate coated with Tufram as the CES, while wearing a pair of nylon booties over running shoes and using a handrail, as the optimal hardware configuration.