São José dos Campos, Brazil
São José dos Campos, Brazil

Time filter

Source Type

Morales A.P.,Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa | Morales A.P.,State University of Norte Fluminense | Maciel R.N.,Salgado de Oliveira University | Jorge F.S.,Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa | And 4 more authors.
Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano | Year: 2013

The strategies adopted by corridors "street" during the evidence from interference of the race distance and levels of technical and physical competition. The objective of this study was to examine the biochemical effects of Creatinine (C), Uric Acid (AU), Creatine Kinase (CK) and Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) caused by a test run of "street" of 6 (six) Km participated n=(15) male athletes (40.53 ± 8.65 years) divided into three groups: Group 1 Best Times (G1MT) n = 5, Group 2 Intermediate Times (G2TI) n = 5; Group 3 Times Worst (G3PT) n = 5. Blood samples were collected 30 min before and immediately after the race. Data were analyzed by Two-Way ANOVA, Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney test. It was considered significant levels (p<0.05). The results showed that there were significant increases in serum activities of intra-group (C) in G1MT before: 1,18±0,04 mg.dL-1 after: 1.60±0.15 mg.dL-1; G2TI before: 1,04±0,15 mg.dL-1 after: 1,56±0,21 mg.dL-1; G3PT before: 1,08±0,13 mg.dL-1 after: 1,52±0,32 mg.dL-1 and (AU) G1MT before: 3,80±0,75 mg.dL-1 after: 4,56±0,94 mg.dL-1; G2TI before: 4,36±1,62 mg.dL-1 after: 5,0±1,69 mg.dL-1; G3PT before: 4,62±1,08 mg.dL-1 after: 5,42±0,86 mg.dL-1, while (CK) and (GFR) showed no significant difference.


Santos A.P.,Associacao Salgado de Oliveira | Santos A.P.,Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa | Guimaraes R.C.,CBMM Co. | Carvalho E.M.,Federal University of Uberlandia | Gastaldi A.C.,Hospital Das Clinicas Of Ribeirao Preto
Respiratory Care | Year: 2013

BACKGROUND: Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella are devices that combine positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and oscillations. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mechanical performance of the Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella devices. METHODS: An experimental platform and a ventilator, used a flow generator at 5, 10, 15, 20, 26, and 32 L/min, were employed at angles of -30°, 0°, and +30° to evaluate Flutter VRP1 and Shaker, whereas Acapella was adjusted at intermediate, higher, and lower levels of resistance, including positive expiratory pressures (PEP) along with air outflow rates and oscillation frequencies. RESULTS: When the relationships between pressure amplitudes of all air flows were analyzed for the 3 devices at low and intermediate pressures levels, no statistically significant differences were observed in mean pressure amplitudes between Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices. However, both devices had different values from Acapella, with their pressure amplitude values being higher than that of Acapella (P = .04). There were no statistically significant differences in PEP for the 3 angles or marks regarding all air flows. The expected relationships between variables were observed, with increases in PEP, compared to those of air flows and resistance. Nevertheless, there was a statistically significant difference in frequency of oscillation between these devices and Acapella, whose value was higher than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices (P = .002). At intermediate pressure levels, the patterns were the same, in comparison to low pressures, although the Acapella device showed frequencies of oscillation values lower than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker (P < .001). At high pressures, there were no statistically significant differences among the 3 devices for frequency of oscillations. CONCLUSIONS: The Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices had a similar performance to that of Acapella in many aspects, except for PEP. © 2013 Daedalus Enterprises.


PubMed | Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa
Type: Comparative Study | Journal: Respiratory care | Year: 2013

Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella are devices that combine positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and oscillations.To compare the mechanical performance of the Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella devices.An experimental platform and a ventilator, used a flow generator at 5, 10, 15, 20, 26, and 32 L/min, were employed at angles of -30, 0, and +30 to evaluate Flutter VRP1 and Shaker, whereas Acapella was adjusted at intermediate, higher, and lower levels of resistance, including positive expiratory pressures (PEP) along with air outflow rates and oscillation frequencies.When the relationships between pressure amplitudes of all air flows were analyzed for the 3 devices at low and intermediate pressures levels, no statistically significant differences were observed in mean pressure amplitudes between Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices. However, both devices had different values from Acapella, with their pressure amplitude values being higher than that of Acapella (P = .04). There were no statistically significant differences in PEP for the 3 angles or marks regarding all air flows. The expected relationships between variables were observed, with increases in PEP, compared to those of air flows and resistance. Nevertheless, there was a statistically significant difference in frequency of oscillation between these devices and Acapella, whose value was higher than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices (P = .002). At intermediate pressure levels, the patterns were the same, in comparison to low pressures, although the Acapella device showed frequencies of oscillation values lower than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker (P < .001). At high pressures, there were no statistically significant differences among the 3 devices for frequency of oscillations.The Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices had a similar performance to that of Acapella in many aspects, except for PEP.

Loading Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa collaborators
Loading Institutos Superiores Of Ensino Do Censa collaborators