Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Exercise Countermeasures”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Heat Production During Countermeasure Exercises Planned for the International Space Station

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.

Rapley, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Overview of Pre-Flight Physical Training, In-Flight Exercise Countermeasures and the Post-Flight Reconditioning Program for International Space Station Astronauts

International Space Station (ISS) astronauts receive supervised physical training pre-flight, utilize exercise countermeasures in-flight, and participate in a structured reconditioning program post-flight. Despite recent advances in exercise hardware and prescribed exercise countermeasures, ISS crewmembers are still found to have variable levels of deconditioning post-flight. This presentation provides an overview of the astronaut medical certification requirements, pre-flight physical training, in-flight exercise countermeasures, and the post-flight reconditioning program. Astronauts must meet medical certification requirements on selection, annually, and prior to ISS missions. In addition, extensive physical fitness testing and standardized medical assessments are performed on long duration crewmembers pre-flight. Limited physical fitness assessments and medical examinations are performed in-flight to develop exercise countermeasure prescriptions, ensure that the crewmembers are physically capable of performing mission tasks, and monitor astronaut health. Upon mission completion, long duration astronauts must re-adapt to the 1 G environment, and be certified as fit to return to space flight training and active duty. A structured, supervised postflight reconditioning program has been developed to prevent injuries, facilitate re-adaptation to the 1 G environment, and subsequently return astronauts to training and space flight. The NASA reconditioning program is implemented by the Astronaut Strength, Conditioning, and Rehabilitation (ASCR) team and supervised by NASA flight surgeons. This program has evolved over the past 10 years of the International Space Station (ISS) program and has been successful in ensuring that long duration astronauts safely re-adapt to the 1 g environment and return to active duty. Lessons learned from this approach to managing deconditioning can be applied to terrestrial medicine and future exploration space flight missions.

Kerstman, Eric↗
NASA NTRS1992

Program development for exercise countermeasures

The concern of NASA's Exercise Countermeasures Project (ECP) is to ensure crew physical effectiveness for flight- or mission-related tasks, and encompasses postflight as well as preflight and inflight exercise components. Attention is given to the implementation of ECP via the Space Shuttle Orbiter's treadmill, rower, cycle ergometer, and lower body negative pressure apparatus.

Hayes, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Biomechanics of Exercise Countermeasures

The Penn State Zero-gravity Simulator (PSZS) is a device developed by the Center for Locomotion Studies (CELOS) to enable ground studies of exercise countermeasures for the bone loss that has been shown to occur during long-term exposure to zero gravity (0G). The PSZS simulates 0G exercise by providing a suspension system that holds an individual in a horizontal (supine) position above the floor in order to enable exercise on a wall-mounted treadmill. Due to this orientation, exercise performed in the PSZS is free of the force of -ravity in the direction that would normally contribute to ground reaction forces. In order for movements to be more similar to those in 0G, a constant force suspension of each segment (equal to the segment weight) is provided regardless of limb position. During the preliminary development of the PSZS, CELOS researchers also designed an optional gravity-replacement simulation feature for the PSZS. This feature was a prototype tethering system that consisted of a spring tension system to pull an exercising individual toward the treadmill. The immediate application of the tethering system was to be the provision of gravity-replacement loading so that exercise in 0G- and 1G-loading conditions could be compared, and the PSZS could then be used to evaluate exercise countermeasures for bone loss during space flight. This tethering system would also be a model for the further refinement of gravity-replacement systems provided for astronaut usage while performing prescribed exercise countermeasures for bone loss during long-term space flights.

Cavanagh, Peter R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

High Intensity Exercise Countermeasures does not Prevent Orthostatic Intolerance Following Prolonged Bed Rest

Approximately 20% of Space Shuttle astronauts became presyncopal during operational stand and 80deg head‐up tilt tests, and the prevalence of orthostatic intolerance increases after longer missions. Greater than 60% of the US astronauts participating in Mir and early International Space Station missions experienced presyncope during post‐flight tilt tests, perhaps related to limitations of the exercise hardware that prevented high intensity exercise training until later ISS missions. The objective of this study was to determine whether an intense resistive and aerobic exercise countermeasure program designed to prevent cardiovascular and musculoskeletal deconditioning during 70 d of bed rest (BR), a space flight analog, would protect against post‐BR orthostatic intolerance. METHODS Twenty‐six subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: non‐exercise controls (n=11) or one of two exercise groups (ExA, n=8; ExB, n=7). Both ExA and ExB groups performed the same resistive and aerobic exercise countermeasures during BR, but one exercise group received testosterone supplementation while the other received a placebo during BR in a double‐blinded fashion. On 3 d/wk, subjects performed lower body resistive exercise and 30 min of continuous aerobic exercise (≥75% max heart rate). On the other 3 d/wk, subjects performed only highintensity, interval‐style aerobic exercise. Orthostatic intolerance was assessed using a 15‐min 80 head‐up tilt test performed 2 d (BR‐2) before and on the last day of BR (BR70). Plasma volume was measured using carbon monoxide rebreathing on BR‐3 and before rising on the first recovery day (BR+0). The code for the exercise groups has not been broken, and results are reported here without group identification. RESULTS Only one subject became presyncopal during tilt testing on BR‐2, but 7 of 11 (63%) controls, 3 of 8 (38%) ExA, and 4 of 7 (57%) ExB subjects were presyncopal on BR70. Survival analysis of post‐BR tilt tests revealed no differences (p=0.77) between groups. Plasma volume (absolute or relative to body mass index) decreased (p<0.001) from pre to post‐BR, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS These preliminary results corroborate previous reports that the performance of a vigorous exercise countermeasure protocol during BR, even with testosterone supplementation, does not protect against orthostatic intolerance or plasma volume loss. Preventing post‐BR orthostatic intolerance may require additional countermeasures, such as orthostatic stress during BR or end‐of‐BR fluid infusion.

Platts, Steven H.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Exercise countermeasure protocol management expert system

Exercise will be used primarily to countermeasure against deconditioning on extended space flight. In this paper we describe the development and evaluation of an expert system for exercise countermeasure protocol management. Currently, the system includes two major subsystems: baseline prescription and prescription adjustment. The baseline prescription subsystem is designed to provide initial exercise prescriptions while prescription adjustment subsystem is designed to modify the initial prescription based on the exercised progress. The system runs under three different environments: PC, SUN workstation, and Symbolic machine. The inference engine, baseline prescription module, prescription adjustment module and explanation module are developed under the Symbolic environment by using the ART (Automated Reasoning Tool) software. The Sun environment handles database management features and interfaces with PC environment to obtain physical and physiological data from exercise units on-board during the flight. Eight subjects' data have been used to evaluate the system performance by comparing the prescription of nine experienced exercise physiologists and the one prescribed by the expert system. The results of the validation test indicated that the performance of the expert system was acceptable.

NASA Discipline Data Analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill, such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D). It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40) who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the treadmill with vibration isolation system 2 (T2), ergometry on the cycle ergometer with vibration isolation and stabilization device (CEVIS), and strength training on the advanced resistive exercise device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. Results: Data collection for this study is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

Introduction: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS), including treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. Methods: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), Results: Eight subjects (2 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 6 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION: Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices (such as the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D]) that provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform without including a treadmill. It is critical to validate the efficacy of exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the physiological effects of spaceflight that occur with nominal ISS exercise prescriptions compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS: Crewmembers will be assigned to one of three groups: 1) Control Group (n ≥ 40), who will partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), ergometry on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) device, and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who will partake in CEVIS and ARED exercise only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who will partake in aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal aerobic exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both active groups will not be permitted to perform treadmill exercise. Health and performance markers including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and following spaceflight. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (3 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 10 Control) have been recruited for this study. Data collection is currently in progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study will assess the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities, including the effects of removing the treadmill exercise capability or of exclusively using the E4D, compared to nominal ISS exercise across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions.

A.N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRS2000

Resistance exercise countermeasures for space flight: implications of training specificity

While resistance exercise should be a logical choice for prevention of strength loss during unloading, the principle of training specificity cannot be overlooked. Our purpose was to explore training specificity in describing the effect of our constant load exercise countermeasure on isokinetic strength performance. Twelve healthy men (mean +/- SD: 28.0 +/- 5.2 years, 179.4 +/- 3.9 cm, 77.5 +/- 13.6 kg) were randomly assigned to no exercise or resistance exercise (REX) during 14 days of bed rest. REX performed five sets of leg press exercise to volitional fatigue (6-10 repetitions) every other day. Unilateral isokinetic concentric-eccentric knee extension testing performed before and on day 15 prior to reambulation included torque-velocity and power-velocity relationships at four velocities (0.52, 1.75, 2.97, and 4.19 rad s-1), torque-position relationship, and contractile work capacity (10 repetitions at 1.05 rad s-1). Two (group) x 2 (time) ANOVA revealed no group x time interactions; thus, groups were combined. Across velocities, angle-specific torque fell 18% and average power fell 20% (p < 0.05). No velocity x time or mode (concentric/eccentric) x time interactions were noted. Torque x position decreased on average 24% (p < 0.05). Total contractile work dropped 27% (p < 0.05). Results indicate bed rest induces rapid and marked reductions in strength and our constant load resistance training protocol did not prevent isokinetic strength losses. Differences between closed-chain training and open-chain testing may explain the lack of protection.

Randomized Controlled Trial↗
NASA NTRS2019

Effect of Loading Configuration on Kinematics and Kinetics for Deadlift and Squat Exercises: Case Study in Modeling Exercise Countermeasure Device for Astronauts

This study compares squat and deadlift exercises performed with two different loading configurations: 1) on a novel single-cable resistance exercise countermeasure device (ECD) for spaceflight and 2) with free weights. The results compare joint kinematics and kinetics between different loading configurations for each exercise, and also between the two exercises for each loading configuration. Single-cable versions of the squat (using a harness) and deadlift (using a T-bar) performed on the Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK) ECD have significantly different sagittal plane joint angle kinematics (both peak angle and range of motion) as well as joint kinetics (both peak joint moment and joint impulse) vs. their free weight equivalents at the same load. Differences also exist in hip abduction and rotation. Overall, the single-cable configurations tend to reduce peak joint angles, ranges of motion, peak joint moment and joint impulse vs. free weights. A notable exception is the lumbar joint, which is more heavily loaded for single-cable squats vs. free weight squats. This may have implications for both training benefit and possible risk of injury. Deadlift and squat exercises work the lower body musculature in different ways, with the deadlift emphasizing hip and lumbar extension and the squat emphasizing knee extension. Based on these findings, we would advocate the use of both movements in the exercise prescriptions of astronaut crews on deep-space missions.

Resistance Exercise↗
NASA NTRS1990

Space Station requirements for in-flight exercise countermeasures

In an effort to retard the deleterious effects of space adaptation, NASA has defined requirements for an Exercise Countermeasure Facility (ECF) within the Space Station Crew Health Care System (CHeCS). The application of exercise as a countermeasure to spaceflight-induced deconditioning has been utilized in the past by both the United States and the Soviet space programs. The ECF will provide exercise hardware, physiological monitoring capabilities, and an interactive motivational display system. ECF operations and data will be coupled through the Space Station Freedom Data Management System for monitoring of inflight training and testing from ground control, thus allowing for real-time evaluation of crewmember performance and modification of exercise prescriptions. Finally, the objective of the ECF is to monitor and control the exercise of crewmembers for the maintenance of an operational level of fitness to ensure mission success.

Hayes, Judith C.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Benefits, Consequences, and Uncertainties of Conventional (Exercise) Countermeasure Approaches

This presentation will review the pros, cons, and uncertainties of using exercise countermeasures in hypothetical long duration exploration missions. The use of artificial gravity and exercise will be briefly discussed. One benefit to continued use of exercise is related to our extensive experience with spaceflight exercise hardware and programming. Exercise has been a part of each space mission dating back to the 1960's when simple isometric and bungee exercises were performed in the Gemini capsule. Over the next 50 years, exercise hardware improved cumulating in today's ISS suite of exercise equipment: Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System (CEVIS), Treadmill (T2) and Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED). Today's exercise equipment is the most robust ever to be flown in space and allows the variety and intensity of exercise that might reasonably be expected to maintain muscle mass and function, bone density and cardiovascular fitness. A second benefit is related to the large body of research literature on exercise training. There is a considerable body of supporting research literature including >40,000 peer reviewed research articles on exercise training in humans. A third benefit of exercise is its effectiveness. With the addition of T2 and ARED to our ISS exercise suite, crew member outcomes on standard medical tests have improved. Additionally exercise has other positive side effects such as stress relief, possible improvement of immune function, improved sleep, etc. Exercise is not without its consequences. The major cons to performance of in‐flight exercise are the time and equipment required. Currently crew are scheduled 2.5 hrs/day for exercise and there is considerable cost to develop, fly and maintain exercise hardware. While no major injuries have been reported on ISS, there is always some risk of injury with any form of exercise There are several uncertainties going forward; these relate mostly to the development of small compact robust effective exercise devices for the next generation of space vehicles. It is becoming increasingly apparent that high intensity exercise is required for maintenance of fitness and functional capability and so future hardware will need to be developed, tested and implemented that allow for a wide variety of exercise, at high intensity while likely involving low mass, volume and power. There are many unanswered issues related to the minimum number and type of exercise devices required for exploration, optimizing exercise prescriptions for these devices, whether a treadmill is absolutely required, and even whether any single countermeasure can adequately protect muscle, bone, cardiovascular and sensorimotor function.

Ploutz-Snyder, Lori↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Replacing Treadmill Running with Alternative Exercise Countermeasures During Long-Duration Spaceflight on Astronaut Health and Performance

INTRODUCTION Current exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) include treadmill running, cycle ergometry, and resistive exercise, which are used to protect crewmember health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. However, exploration vehicles for Artemis missions to the Moon and beyond will have volume and power restrictions, requiring exercise hardware to have a smaller footprint and use fewer resources. Thus, recent efforts have focused on developing exercise devices that provide both aerobic and resistive capabilities on one platform without including a treadmill. The European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device [E4D] is one such apparatus. It is critical to validate the efficacy of using exploration-focused exercise modalities to preserve muscle strength, aerobic fitness, bone density, and sensorimotor performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of using nominal ISS exercise devices for an entire mission compared to exploration-forward exercise modalities to determine if a treadmill is required to maintain current levels of protection during long-duration missions. METHODS Crewmembers are assigned to one of three groups: 1) Controls (n ≥ 40), who partake in nominal exercise on the ISS, including running on the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization 2 (T2), cycling on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS), and strength training on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED); 2) Active Group 1, who exercise on the CEVIS and ARED only (n = 8); and 3) Active Group 2, who perform aerobic and resistive exercise on the E4D only (n = 8). For Active Group 1, nominal exercise on T2 will be replaced with corresponding exercise on CEVIS. For Active Group 2, a dedicated exercise prescription will be designed to maximize the capabilities of the E4D to include resistive exercise, cycle ergometry, rowing, and rope pulling. Crewmembers in both Active groups are not permitted to perform treadmill exercise for the entirety of their flight. Health and performance markers, including bone mineral density (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]), body composition (DXA), cardiovascular fitness (cycle VO2peak), muscle strength and endurance (isometric/isokinetic testing, power endurance testing), sensorimotor performance (sit-to-stand, obstacle course), postural control (computerized dynamic posturography), and blood and urine biochemical markers of bone metabolism will be assessed before, during, and after spaceflight. RESULTS Fifteen subjects (4 Active [CEVIS + ARED], 11 Control) have been recruited. Data collection is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS This study will assess the efficacy of using exploration exercise modalities, including removing the treadmill exercise capability or exclusively using the E4D, compared to the nominal ISS exercise regimen across an entire mission on bone, muscle, aerobic, and sensorimotor health and performance. Findings from this study will help provide a recommendation on whether these exploration exercise modalities can sufficiently protect against physiological deconditioning during spaceflight or whether a treadmill may be required to maintain current levels of protection during future exploration class spaceflight missions. Supported by the NASA Human Research Program and NASA Exploration Capabilities

A N Varanoske↗
NASA NTRS2017

Designing for Reliability and Robustness in International Space Station Exercise Countermeasures Systems

As spaceflight durations have increased over the last four decades, the effects of microgravity on the human body have become far better understood, as have the exercise countermeasures. Through use of a combination of aerobic and resistive exercise devices, today's astronauts and cosmonauts are able to partially counter the losses in muscle strength, aerobic fitness, and bone strength that otherwise might occur during their missions on the International Space Station (ISS). Since 2000, the ISS has employed a variety of exercise equipment used as countermeasures to these risks. Providing reliable and available exercise systems has presented significant challenges due to the unique environment. In solving these, lessons have been learned that can inform development of future systems.

Moore, Cherice↗
NASA NTRS1998

Exercise Countermeasures Demonstration Project During the Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project Phase 2A

This demonstration project assessed the crew members' compliance to a portion of the exercise countermeasures planned for use onboard the International Space Station (ISS) and the outcomes of their performing these countermeasures. Although these countermeasures have been used separately in other projects and investigations, this was the first time they'd been used together for an extended period (60 days) in an investigation of this nature. Crew members exercised every day for six days, alternating every other day between aerobic and resistive exercise, and rested on the seventh day. On the aerobic exercise days, subjects exercised on an electronically braked cycle ergometer using a protocol that has been previously shown to maintain aerobic capacity in subjects exposed to a space flight analogue. On the resistive exercise days, crew members performed five major multijoint resistive exercises in a concentric mode, targeting those muscle groups and bones we believe are most severely affected by space flight. The subjects favorably tolerated both exercise protocols, with a 98% compliance to aerobic exercise prescription and a 91% adherence to the resistive exercise protocol. After 60 days, the crew members improved their peak aerobic capacity by an average 7%, and strength gains were noted in all subjects. These results suggest that these exercise protocols can be performed during ISS, lunar, and Mars missions, although we anticipate more frequent bouts with both protocols for long-duration spaceflight. Future projects should investigate the impact of increased exercise duration and frequency on subject compliance, and the efficacy of such exercise prescriptions.

Lee, Stuart M. C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Current ISS Exercise Countermeasures: Where are we now?

Current International Space Station (ISS) crew schedules include 1.5 h/d for completion of resistive exercise and 1 h/d of aerobic exercise , 6 d/wk. While ISS post flight decrements in muscle strength, bone m ineral density, and aerobic capacity improved in some crewmembers, de conditioning was still evident even with this volume of exercise. Res ults from early ISS expeditions show maximum loss in bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and pelvis in excess of 1.5% per month, with all crewmembers demonstrating significant bone loss in one or more re gions. Similarly, post flight muscle strength losses in the hamstring and quadriceps muscle groups exceeded 30% in the immediate post miss ion period in some crewmembers. Measures of aerobic capacity early in the mission show average decrements of 15%, but with onboard aerobic exercise capability, the crew has been able to "train up" over the co urse of the mission. These findings are highly variable among crewmem bers and appear to be correlated with availability and reliability of the inflight resistive exercise device (RED), cycle ergometer, and t readmill. This suite of hardware was installed on ISS with limited op erational evaluation in groundbased test beds. As a result, onorbit hardware constraints have resulted in inadequate physical stimulus, d econditioning, and increased risk for compromised performance during intra and extravehicular activities. These issues indicate that the c urrent ISS Countermeasures System reliability or validity are not ade quate for extendedduration exploration missions. Learning Objective: A better understanding of the status of ISS exercise countermeasures , their ability to protect physiologic systems, and recommendations for exploration exercise countermeasures.

Hayes, J. C.↗