Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the physiological responses of AMP using a run-specific prosthesis (RP) versus a traditional prosthesis (P) and cross-referenced with nonamputee controls (C) matched by training status, age, gender, and body composition during level treadmill running (TM). Methods: Twelve trained runners completed a multistage submaximal TM exercise during which HR and oxygen uptake (VO2) were obtained. Steady state measures at 134 m/min were compared between RP and P in AMP. AMP using RP (AMP-RP) and C also performed a continuous speed-incremented maximal TM test until volitional fatigue. Results: RP elicited lower HR and VO2 compared with P in AMP. Using RP, AMP achieved similar VO2max and peak TM speed compared with C but with higher HRmax. Relative HR (%HRmax) and oxygen uptake (%VO2max), the regression intercept, slope, SEE, and Pearson's r correlation were not different between AMP-RP and C. %HRmax calculated with the published equation, %HRmax = 0.73(%VO2max) + 30, was not significantly different from actual %HRmax for AMP-RP or C in any stage. Conclusions: RP permits AMP to attain peak TM speed and aerobic capacity similar to trained nonamputees and significantly attenuates HR and energy cost of submaximal running compared with a P. Use of RP confers no physiological advantage compared with nonamputee runners because energy cost at the set speed was not significantly different for AMP-RP. Current equations on the basis of the relative HR-VO2 relationship seem appropriate to prescribe exercise intensity for persons with transtibial amputations using RP.
© Copyright 2009 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.