Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Frisco”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Development of Lunar EVA Fitness for Duty Standards for Aerobic Capacity and Muscle Strength

Current aerobic Fitness Standards for NASA astronauts are based on peak aerobic capacity (i.e. VO2peak (ml/kg/min))and are related to aerobic metabolic requirements for Extravehicular Activity (EVA) in microgravity and in 1 g operational environments. Standards for muscle strength need to be developed. Fitness for Duty Standards for partial gravity EVA (e.g. 1/6 g EVA on the Lunar surface) are not developed in terms of aerobic fitness and muscle strength. Defining thresholds for aerobic fitness and muscle strength will help to provide guidance in determining recommendations for optimal fitness necessary for partial g EVA success.

D Frisco↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Standards for Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, astronauts will need to be physically primed to successfully execute Extravehicular Activities (EVA) on the Lunar surface. Compared to past Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, intensity, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives. The physical demand associated with partial gravity (g) EVAs on the Moon is expected to be greater compared to microgravity EVAs based on initial workload estimation. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial g EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity data and require further research for establishing standards to protect crew health and performance during Lunar surface missions. Therefore, the aim of this investigation is to characterize metabolic data from Lunar analog simulations and in-flight crew population aerobic capacity data to validate the current NASA 3001 standard for celestial partial g aerobic fitness (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). Methods: In order to evaluate aerobic fitness requirements for Lunar EVAs, the following were performed: 1) preliminary analysis of long-duration (6 hr) EVA analog simulations in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to evaluate expected metabolic rates for 1/6 g EVAs (NBL: n=1 female; ARGOS: n=1 male) and 2) assessment of the current NASA 3001 celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min) with data from an ISS astronaut population (n=30 male + 13 female) captured before and during space flight (flight day 15). Preliminary Results: Average fractional aerobic capacity during simulated EVAs were 33%±7% VO_2pk and 23.3±7% VO_2pk in the NBL and ARGOS, respectively. This was within a previously predicted 30–40% sustainable work rate. Average metabolic rates for some tasks performed in the NBL, such as traverse (40.4% VO_2pk) and ingress (47.1% VO_2pk) were higher than the predicted sustainable work range. In ARGOS, the tasks with the greatest metabolic rates were object relocation (34.2% VO_2pk) and incapacitated crew rescue (27.0% VO_2pk). Characterization of ISS crewmember aerobic capacity determined that the average preflight VO_2pk was 42.1±5.4 ml/kg/min for females and 37.5±5.4 ml/kg/min for males. At preflight, 21.5% of crewmembers were below the 36.5 ml/kg/min in-mission aerobic standard for celestial surface EVA as outlined in NASA-STD-3001. In-flight, both female and male crewmembers experienced reductions in VO_2pk (11.7% and 10.9%, respectively), such that, during the mission, 62% of crewmembers were below the standard aerobic capacity level for celestial surface EVAs. Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that while average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within the 30–40% sustainable work range, task specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. Additionally, deconditioning due to space flight results in most crewmembers falling below the current celestial partial g EVA standard, which may increase risk to crew health and performance and completing mission objectives for surface missions. Further research is necessary in Artemis-specific analog environments to validate the current NASA-3001 aerobic standard for celestial EVAs. Additionally, work is ongoing to validate the current NASA-3001 strength standard for celestial EVAs.

N.C. Strock↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗
NASA NTRS2023

Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength &, Endurance (Short Title: Muscle) and Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (Short Title: Aerobic)

This report reviews the scientific literature regarding the human system risks to the microgravity environment of space flight in relation to human performance. The primary human performance-related risks involve deconditioning of the cardiovascular and skeletal muscles systems due to prolonged exposure to the reduced gravitational input. The chronological history of U.S. space flight is reviewed as a starting point to inform and understand the gaps in the knowledge to these risks. Maintenance of physical performance capabilities involves understanding the health of many organ systems (peripheral [vascular, heart, blood volume, skeletal muscle] and central [brain]) that ultimately contribute to the submaximal and maximal capacity of the aerobic (VO2peak), skeletal muscle (strength and endurance) systems. Maintaining astronaut VO2peak, muscle mass, strength, and endurance before, during, and after space flight is a significant priority to NASA for the current International Space Station (ISS) era, as well as for future exploration missions. A growing research database from both space flight and ground-based analog studies finds that the cardiorespiratory system is compromised and skeletal muscles (predominantly postural muscles of the lower limbs) undergo atrophy. These structural and metabolic responses to living in microgravity conditions contribute to physiological deconditioning during space flight that potentially increase the risks to astronauts returning to surface operations (i.e., Moon, Mars, or Earth). The time course changes from short to long-duration space flight and the relationships between in-flight performance deconditioning levels are not well characterized. Moreover, there are large interindividual variabilities that may be dependent on genetics, age, sex, preflight fitness levels, and individual exercise prescriptions that need further careful evaluations. Efforts should be made to understand the current status of preflight, in-flight, and postflight exercise performance capability and to define the operational goals and target areas for protection with the in-flight exercise program. There is a bi-directional relationship between exercise prescription and hardware countermeasures that need further understanding in-flight. For example, hardware with limited capabilities/modalities may be counterbalanced by changes in exercise prescription (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume) for providing effective responses to maintain fitness. Importantly, the minimal requirements for exercise prescription on ISS hardware may not translate to lower capability hardware on exploration missions. Due to limited volume on exploration vehicles, future Artemis missions to the Lunar surface will not have similar exercise hardware capabilities as ISS. This may alter the effectiveness of hardware to provide adequate physiological stress on bodily systems allowing for adaptations to maintain aerobic capacity, strength, and bone density. Thus, it will be important to understand the exercise responses of current ISS countermeasures to develop individualized exercise prescriptions that minimize aerobic and muscular risks, accounting for the large variability of responses among crewmembers. Newer exploration exercise hardware is currently being evaluated that is more compact (i.e., E4D and Orion Flywheel) and will require careful evaluation of the hardware on the stressor (i.e., metabolic rate, oxygen uptake, and heart rate work relationships, and force plate load profiles) needed the human body to protect and maintain crew health and performance. Moreover, exercise responses on the hardware need careful evaluation on the chronic adaptations. Lastly, in-flight evaluation of hardware exercise response may differ in 0-g or partial-g compared to 1-g. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the stress on the body will be the same in each environment. Understanding this has a direct impact on exercise prescriptions. This document provides an overview of key scientific investigations that have been conducted before, during, and after human space flight missions, as well as from human ground-based analog studies that contribute to the evidence base on changes in aerobic capacity and muscle mass, strength, and endurance. Additional data from rodent and nonhuman primate experiments of skeletal muscle unloading completed during space flight or ground-based flight-simulations provide supportive information about this risk topic. Most importantly, a recent, large dataset from long-duration ISS crew has been added to give improved insight into the variability of exercise response of crew, demonstrating that a large portion of the crew population return to Earth with greater than 10-20% loss of aerobic capacity and muscle strength and endurance. Data from human space flight and ground-based studies are narrowing in on the required exercise paradigms but thus far still provide an incomplete answer to an effective approach for maintaining skeletal muscle function and aerobic fitness of all human space travelers. Finally, the relationship of this risk topic to various space flight operational scenarios is examined and discussed.

Eric Rivas↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Temporal Changes in Astronauts’ Muscle and Cardiorespiratory Physiology Before, During, and After Spaceflight

Background: NASA’s planned space exploration missions will require astronauts to safely perform extravehicular activity (EVA) and to safely egress vehicles in a variety of landing scenarios. Prolonged exposure to spaceflight can diminish tolerance for physical activity, decrease cardiovascular and sensorimotor function, cause loss of bone mineral density, as well as reduced muscle mass and strength. Although exercise can mitigate these spaceflight-induced physiological decrements, little is known regarding the time-course of changes in muscle and aerobic performance during spaceflight. Furthermore, these exercise countermeasures are not fully protective. For example, maximal aerobic capacity (VO2pk), lower body muscle cross-sectional area, and strength decrease by about 10% to 15% after short- (≈14 days) and long-duration (≈6 months) missions on the International Space Station (ISS). Future space missions longer in duration and further from Earth will employ exploration vehicles that will have exercise hardware with less robust and more constrained exercise capabilities than of those available on the ISS. Thus, countermeasures will need to be optimized to protect crew health and performance on exploration-class missions lasting up to 3 years. This requires a more detailed understanding of the dynamic effects of spaceflight on human health and performance, the ability of exercise to protect against this deconditioning, and the interaction of exercise with interrelated factors like nutrition, sleep, and environmental conditions. Methods: We will use standardized research and medical testing protocols previously validated in 1g and microgravity to quantify the time course and the inter-individual variability of changes in physical performance, including cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength and endurance, before, during, and after spaceflight missions lasting 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Additionally, we will use an extrapolation model to predict changes associated with multi-year exploration missions. Additionally, we will monitor in-flight exercise, nutrition, and sleep using in-flight assessment tools. Significance: Our testing protocols will provide valuable information for determining time course of change and the interindividual variability of spaceflight-induced deconditioning of aerobic capacity and muscle strength and endurance over the course of spaceflight missions up to and beyond 1 year. This information will be vital to assess whether humans can be physically ready for deep space exploration, such as on a mission to Mars, using current technology, or if additional mitigation strategies are necessary.

N Strock↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Inter-Individual Variability in Astronaut Strength Response to Long-Duration Spaceflight May Be Dictated by In-Flight Exercise

Deconditioning induced by prolonged microgravity exposure during spaceflight hinders physical capacity. Examination of pre- to post-flight isokinetic strength measures shows that strength decreases; however, considerable variability between crewmembers exists. As in-flight exercise differs between crew, an examination of exercise training variables contributing to strength preservation is necessary. The purpose of this analysis was to examine in-flight exercise of astronauts who maintain strength compared to those with the greatest decrements in strength from pre- to post-flight.

Alyssa N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Standards for Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, astronauts will need to be physically primed to successfully execute Extravehicular Activities (EVA) on the Lunar surface. Compared to past Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, intensity, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives. The physical demand associated with partial gravity (g) EVAs on the Moon is expected to be greater compared to microgravity EVAs based on initial workload estimation. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial g EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity data and require further research for establishing standards to protect crew health and performance during Lunar surface missions. Therefore, the aim of this investigation is to characterize metabolic data from Lunar analog simulations and in-flight crew population aerobic capacity data to validate the current NASA 3001 standard for celestial partial g aerobic fitness (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min).

Nicole Strock↗
NASA NTRS2023

Female Astronauts Exhibit Greater Reductions in Aerobic Peak Power Following Long-Duration Space Flight than Males

BACKGROUND: Long-duration exposure to microgravity during space flight causes cardiovascular deconditioning, ultimately reducing aerobic fitness. While sex-based differences play an integral role in health on Earth, there is a paucity of data to inform space flight-induced health and performance implications for female astronauts, which may be critical to ensure health, safety, and mission success. Therefore, this retrospective investigation characterized aerobic capacity in female and male astronauts to inform whether sex differences exist from pre to postflight. METHODS: A NASA historical database (n=47 crew; 11 female, 36 male) of International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers was used to characterize sex differences in aerobic capacity changes from pre to postflight to update the NASA Aerobic and Muscle Risk Evidence Report. Aerobic capacity (VO2pk; ml/kg/min) and peak power (W) were assessed using a graded cycling exercise protocol that included a 3-min warmup at 50 W, with stepwise increases in resistance (25 W/min) until volitional fatigue. Group differences in baseline demographics and the percent change in aerobic capacity from preflight (~90 days before launch) to postflight (~3 days after return) were compared using independent t-tests. Significance was set at P<0.05 (Mean ±SD). RESULTS: At preflight, females were younger (44.5±6.6 vs 48.6±5.6 yrs; p=0.041), weighed less (68.8±10.0 vs 81.0±8.8 kg; p< 0.001), with lower VO2pk (32.8±5.9 vs 37.8±6.0 ml/kg/min; p=0.021) and aerobic peak power (229±42 vs 299±52 W; p< 0.001) than males, but had similar heart rate at VO2pk (176.0±7.3 vs 173.0±10.8 beats/min; p=0.406). ISS flight durations (F: 205.0±58.3 vs M: 176.0±40.5 days; p=0.061) and reductions in VO2pk from pre to postflight were comparable between sexes (F: -11.8±10.7%; M: -8.8%±7.9%; p=0.32). However, females had a greater reduction in aerobic peak power than males (−13.3%±8.9% vs −4.9%±8.8%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that some indicators of fitness (i.e., aerobic peak power) are more impacted in female astronauts compared to males after long-duration space flight missions. Future investigations with larger sample sizes are necessary to identify the physiological basis of sex-based differences and develop effective countermeasure approaches for both sexes.

Nicole C Strock↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Exploration Extravehicular Activity (xEVA), or spacewalks, during NASA’s future Lunar (Artemis) missions are expected to be more physically and cognitively demanding than any previous missions. Characterizing the effects of xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue will be valuable, and perhaps essential, to the preservation of crew health and performance during xEVA.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Inter-Individual Variability in Astronaut Strength Response to Long-Duration Spaceflight May Be Dictated by In-Flight Exercise

BACKGROUND: Deconditioning induced by prolonged microgravity exposure during spaceflight hinders physical capacity. Examination of pre- to post-flight isokinetic strength measures shows that strength decreases; however, considerable variability between crewmembers exists. As in-flight exercise differs between crew, an examination of exercise training variables contributing to strength preservation is necessary. The purpose of this analysis was to examine in-flight exercise of astronauts who maintain strength compared to those with the greatest decrements in strength from pre- to post-flight. METHODS: The database of NASA International Space Station (ISS) crew who completed pre- and post-flight knee isokinetic testing (n = 87) was used to identify “responders” (R) and “non-responders” (NR) to in-flight exercise (≥ 90-day flight duration). R were those that maintained or improved strength (mean of knee extension and flexion at 60°/sec) (n = 14; 5.6 ± 7.8%), and NR were those with the most severe decrements (n = 14; -32.8 ± 4.1%) from pre- to post-flight. In-flight daily exercise records (cycle ergometer, treadmill, resistance exercise) were aggregated on a weekly basis. Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups for in-flight exercise variables (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume). RESULTS: In-flight cycle ergometer frequency (2.4 ± 0.8 vs. 3.3 ± 1.0 days/wk; p = 0.021), total time (78.5 ± 20.4 vs. 114.0 ± 49.3 min/wk; p = 0.021), and active time (59.3 ± 17.2 vs. 86.9 ± 44.1 min/wk; p = 0.050) were greater in NR than R, but no differences for cycle intensity were observed. Treadmill distance traveled per session was greater in R than NR (4.6 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 1.3 km/sess, p = 0.031), but no differences for treadmill frequency, total time, or active time were observed. Lower body resistance exercise intensity relative to pre-flight body weight was greater in R than NR (110.0 ± 16.5 vs 88.7 ± 25.0%; p = 0.012), but no differences in upper body or core resistance exercise intensity, volume, or frequency existed. CONCLUSIONS: The unique musculoskeletal loading provided by treadmill running at the expense of cycle ergometry, combined with using higher relative lower body loads during resistance training, may contribute to preserving strength in ISS crewmembers during long-duration spaceflight.

Alyssa N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Teal Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System Human-in-the-Loop Ground Evaluation for Long-Duration Spaceflight

Purpose: To counter the deleterious effects of weightlessness on the cardiopulmonary system, astronauts living on the International Space Station exercise on a variety of countermeasure equipment including the Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System (CEVIS). Operational since 2001, the onboard CEVIS will be replaced by a new model, known as Teal CEVIS (TC). As a part of ground evaluation, TC hardware underwent human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing to verify the TC hardware produces workloads that elicit physiologic responses comparable to a laboratory cycle ergometer (LAB). Methods: Seven subjects (5 M/2 F) performed submaximal cycle ergometer testing with indirect calorimetry measures on TC and LAB on separate test days. Testing consisted of graded 30 watt increases in workload until subjects reached 85% of age-predicted max heart rate (HR). Exercise outcomes included rate of oxygen uptake (VO2; liters/min), rate of energy expenditure (REE; kcal/min), and HR (beats/min). Linear mixed models (LMM) were fitted to compare VO2, REE, and HR responses between devices across power outputs with fixed effects for power (P) and device (D) and with random effects for subject. LMM effect coefficients (β), std errors (SE), pseudo-partial R2 of effects (pR2), and model likelihood ratio statistics (χ2, Pr(> chisq); α<.05) are provided. Results: LMM main effects for P and D were observed for VO2 (βp=.0107, SE = .0002, pR2=0.97; βd = -0.075, SE = 0.019, pR2=0.14; χ2(1)= 13.57, p<.001), such that VO2 was higher across stages on TC. Main effects of P and D were observed for REE (βp= .0586, SE = 0.001, pR2= 0.97; βd = -0.33208, SE = 0.099, pR2= 0.056; χ2(1)=10.481, p < .01), such that REE was higher across power outputs on TC. A P x D interaction was observed for HR, along with main effects for P and D (βp x d =-0.048, SE = 0.02, pR2=0.048; βp= 0.42, SE = 0.016, pR2=0.87; χ2(1) = 5.398, p = 0.02), such that higher workloads elicited a greater difference in HR between devices. Conclusions: HITL results show, TC elicits greater physiologic responses across power outputs compared to LAB. However, pR2 for device effects show small differences between devices. Therefore, TC can be expected to provide appropriate physiological stimulus across workloads and be considered a reliable tool to mitigate the effects of weightlessness.

Cycle Ergometer Vibration and Isolation System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Capacity in Relation to Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

INTRODUCTION Astronauts will need to be physically prepared to successfully execute strenuous Extravehicular Activities (EVA)on the Lunar surface. Compared to Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives and potential contingency scenarios. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial gravity (g)surface EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity EVA analog data. This investigation aims to characterize metabolic demands from Lunar analog EVA simulations in relation to the current NASA standards for celestial partial-g aerobic fitness(aerobic capacity (VO2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). METHODS To evaluate current Lunar EVA aerobic fitness requirements, a pilot study was performed to characterize metabolic ratesduring6 hour simulated EVAs. The EVAs were performed in pressurized MKIII (n=2male) and xEMU (n=3 female) spacesuits offloaded to 1/6 g in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System. VO2pk was assessed via graded exercise testing on acycle ergometer and physical workload was quantified as percent ofVO2pk. RESULTS Four out of five subjects did not meet the current NASA celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (3 xEMU, 1MKIII;35.1±0.9 ml/kg/min). During simulated EVAs, subjects (xEMU: 35±1ml/kg/min; MKIII: 44±10ml/kg/min) worked at an average 36%VO2pk(xEMU) and 31% VO2pk(MKIII). For xEMU subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 2km treadmill traverse(0% grade: 47.2%VO2pk[max 69.1%]), object relocation (45.2%VO2pk[max 60.5%]), and 1.5km traverse (0% grade: 45%VO2pk[max 59.7%]). For MKIII subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 0.5km treadmill traverse (30% grade: 35.4% VO2pk[max 45.5%]), object relocation(31% VO2pk[max 40.8%]), and treadmill traverse (0% grade: 29.9%VO2pk[max 45.9%]). CONCLUSIONS While average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within sustainable work ranges of30–40% VO2pkand life support system limitations, task-specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. As few subjects met the standard, more data is needed to adequately evaluate the NASA 3001 standard.

N C Strock↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Increased Treadmill Running and Lower-Body Resistance Training Intensity May Attenuate Aerobic Capacity Loss During Spaceflight

BACKGROUND: In-flight exercise training is the primary countermeasure to mitigate spaceflight-induced decrements in strength and aerobic capacity. Despite high-quality exercise capabilities and prescriptions aboard the International Space Station (ISS), most astronauts experience strength and aerobic capacity loss; however, significant individual variability exists. Recent findings suggest that greater in-flight running (i.e., distance per session) and lower-body resistance exercise intensity (i.e., load relative to body weight) help preserve strength. Whether similar variables contribute to the preservation of aerobic capacity during spaceflight is unknown. METHODS: A NASA database of exercise performance metrics was used to identify long-duration (≥ 90 days) ISS crew who completed pre- and post-flight aerobic capacity testing (VO2peak, cycle ergometry, n = 44). “Responders” (R) were classified as those that maintained or improved VO2peak (n = 13; 1.4 ± 3.3%), and “non-responders” (NR) were those with the most severe decrements (n = 13; -20.0 ± 3.4%) from pre- to post-flight. In-flight exercise records (cycling, treadmill, resistance exercise) were aggregated across flight weeks. Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare training variables (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume) between R and NR. RESULTS: Consistent with the variables contributing to strength protection, in-flight running distance (R: 5.0 ± 0.7; NR: 4.2 ± 1.0 km/session, p = 0.020) and lower-body resistance exercise intensity (R: 110.9 ± 27.3; NR: 91.7 ± 16.5% body weight, p = 0.040) were greater in R than NR. Active running time was also greater in R than NR (R: 101.1 ± 20.4; NR: 82.3 ± 23.5 min/wk; p = 0.039). However, no group differences in cycling frequency, intensity, or time, as well as upper body or core resistance exercise intensity, volume, or frequency were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although physiologically distinct stimuli, the exercise training variables contributing to the preservation of both strength and aerobic capacity during microgravity exposure appear to be consistent. Increased running time and distance, but not cycling, combined with higher-intensity lower-body resistance exercise, may help mitigate losses in both aerobic capacity and strength during long-duration spaceflight.

Alyssa N Varanoske↗