ALBERT

Description: The losses of aerobic power and orthostatic tolerance are significant effects of manned C) spaceflight that can negatively impact crew health and safety. Daily acceleration and aerobic training may ameliorate these effects. To determine the influence of passive intermittent +Gz acceleration (PA) training and active acceleration + interval exercise (AE) training on work 0 0 capacity and the acute (1 min) response to 70 deg head-up tilt, 6 men (X-Bar SD: age, 33 +/- 6 y; height, 178.3 +/- 4.6 cm; mass, 86.3 +/- 6.6 kg) participated in two 3-wk training protocols. It was hypothesized that PA and AE training would improve orthostatic tolerance and that the addition of aerobic conditioning, would not alter this effect.

Description: The relative effects of alternating exercise vs. acclamation training an mean blood pressure (BP, Finapres), cardiac output (CO, BoMed) and peripheral resistance (PR, calculated) were evaluated. Six healthy men (33$\pm$(SD)6 yr. 178$\pm$4 cm, 86$\pm$6 kg) underwent exercise training (ET, n=3): supine on a cycle ergometer (40 to 90\% Vo$_{2}$ max) during exposure to constant+1G$_{z}$ for $\sim$30 min/day for 14 days on NASA's 1.9m Human Powered Centrifuge (HPC). They also underwent oscillatory (between +1 G$ {z}$and$\sim$2.5G$_{z}$) acceleration training (AT, n=3) for $\sim$30 min/day for 14 days on the HPC. After four weeks of ambulatory deconditioning, training protocols were switched. AT increased resting CO by 9.MpmS(SE)3.2\% (p$less than$0.05) with no effect on BF, and ET decreased BP by 9.2$\pm$4.6\% (p$less than$0.08) as well as spectral power of PR by 41$\pm$9\% (p$less than$0.05). The major effect of acceleration training was to increase resting cardiac output while that of exercise mining was to decrease resting blood pressure.

Description: The purpose of this study was to investigate cardiopulmonary responses to supine cycling with concomitant +G(sub z) acceleration using the NASA/Ames Human Powered Short-Arm Centrifuge (HPC). Subjects were eight consenting males (32+/-5 yrs, 178+/-5 cm, 86.1+/- 6.2 kg). All subjects completed two maximal exercise tests on the HPC (with and without acceleration) within a three-day period. A two tailed t-test with statistical significance set at p less than or equal to 0.05 was used to compare treatments. Peak acceleration was 3.4+/-0.1 G(sub z), (head to foot acceleration). Peak oxygen uptake (VO2(sub peak) was not different between treatment groups (3.1+/-0.1 Lmin(exp -1) vs. 3.2+/-0.1 Lmin(exp -1) for stationary and acceleration trials, respectively). Peak HR and pulmonary minute ventilation (V(sub E(sub BTPS))) were significantly elevated (p less than or equal to 0.05) for the acceleration trial (182+/-3 BPM (Beats per Minute); 132.0+/-9.0 Lmin(exp -1)) when compared to the stationary trial (175+/-3 BPM; 115.5+/-8.5 Lmin(exp -1)). Ventilatory threshold expressed as a percent of VO2(sub peak) was not different for acceleration and stationary trials (72+/-2% vs. 68+/-2% respectively). Results suggest that 3.4 G(sub z) acceleration does not alter VO2(sub peak) response to supine cycling. However, peak HR and V(sub E(sub BTPS)) response may be increased while ventilatory threshold response expressed as a function of percent VO2(sub peak) is relatively unaffected. Thus, traditional exercise prescription based on VO2 response would be appropriate for this mode of exercise. Prescriptions based on HR response may require modification.