Content uploaded by Chin Leong Lim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chin Leong Lim on Mar 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
MILITARY
MEDICINE,
163, 11:770, 1998
AComparison of
Maximum
Oxygen
Consumption, Aerobic
Performance, and Endurance in
Young
and
Active
Male
Smokers
and Nonsmokers
Elaine
Yu
Ming
Song BS (Hon.)*
Chin
Leong
Lim
BS, MS, MBAt
The purpose of this study was to compare 2.4-km running
performance in 2,639 smoking
(SM)
and nonsmoking
(NS)
male conscripts aged 18 to 26 years. Maximum oxygen con-
sumption
(V02max)
and aerobic exercise endurance were also
compared between SMand NSsubjects (N =156) stratified into
various running performance bands. SM subjects ran signifi-
cantly slower (10.59 ±1.17 minutes)
than
NS subjects
(10.32 ±1.03 minutes) in the 2.4-km
run
test
(p < 0.001). The
mean V0
2max
of SMsubjects (53.38 ±8.58 ml kg- Imin-I) was
not
significantly different from
that
of the NS subjects (54.42 ±
7.82 ml kg- Imin-I) (p >0.05). Exercise endurance time on the
treadmill protocol
(EXtm)
was significantly longer in the NS
group only among those who completed the 2.4-km
run
in
<9.01 minutes (p < 0.05). Maximum minute ventilation
(VEmax)
was also significantly higher in the NS group in the
<9.01-minute performance band. No
other
significant differ-
ences were found between SM and NS subjects in EXtm and
VEmax.
Mean maximum heart rate achieved during the tread-
mill
test
ranged from 180 ±4 to 191 ±12 beats per minute in
the SM group and from 183 ±5 to 188 ±19 beats per minute
in the NS group. These were
not
significantly different
(p
>
0.05). In conclusion, smoking habit was shown to influence
aerobic performance in the 2.4-km run,
VEmax,
and EXtm only
during high-intensity aerobic exercise. V0
2max
was
not
influ-
enced by smoking habit when aerobic performance was held
constant.
Introduction
Cigarette
smoking
has been
documented
to
adversely
affect
health,
especially
in cardiorespiratory function'> and
exer-
cise performance.t" The agent causing the
adverse
health
ef-
fects
of
smoking
is the
nicotine
in
tobacco
smoke,
which
in-
creases heart rate and
blood
pressure, impairs
ventilatory
functions, and constricts ventilatory
pathways
and
blood
vessels.
1,7-13
The
effects
ofcigarette
smoking
on
general
healthand
cardio-
vasculardiseases>" havenot been consistently associated with
lower
aerobic
capacity as measuredby
maximum
oxygen
con-
sumption
(V02max).14-17
Although
lower
V0
2max
was
consis-
tently
found
in 16-to
69-year-old
smokers
compared
withtheir
nonsmoking
counterparts,
14-17
other studies didnot reportany
significant
difference
in V0
2max
among
smokers
in
young
(16-19years
01d)l8
and older(30-59years
01d)l5
males,
hospital
residential physictans,"
elite
sportsmen,
20
and blue-collar
*Defence
Medical
Research
Institute,
AFPN
0051,
5
Depot
Road,
Singapore
109681.
tSchool
of
Physical
Training,
Singapore
Armed
Forces,
233
Pasir
Laba
Road,
Singapore
637901.
This
manuscript
was
received
for
review
in
August
1997.
The
revised
manuscript
was
accepted
for
publication
in
March
1998.
Reprint
&
Copyright
©by
Association
of
Military
Surgeons
of
U.S.,
1998.
Meng
Kin
Lim
MBBS, FAMS, MS, MPH*
workers."
Cigarette
smoking,
however,
was reported to havea
deleterious
influence
on
aerobic
exercise
performance.
17.22-26
Thiswas
found
in a
12-minute
run in 6,592
Swiss
conscripts,"
16-km
race ttme."
2.4-km
running
performance
in
1,357
Navy
men,23.24
and 3.2-kmrunning
performance
in
male
and
female
military
medical
personnel.
25
Only
one study" didnot reporta
significant
difference
in 2-kmrunning times
between
smokers
and
nonsmokers.
Although
the
influence
of
smoking
on
aerobic
exercise
perfor-
manceandV0
2max
has beenstudied
extensively,
the authors of
thecurrentstudyare not
aware
ofanyreportsthat
analyzed
this
relationship with
performance
held constant at various
levels.
With
the
close
association
between
V0
2max
and
aerobic
exer-
cise
performance,
the
possibility
ofa
differential
effect
of
smok-
ing at
different
aerobic
exercise
performance
levels
should not
be ruled out. In
addition,
there is also a lack ofsuch studies on
the
Asian
population.
Thepurposesofthis study,
therefore,
are
to establishthe relationship
between
cigarette
smoking
habits
and
aerobic
exercise
performance
among
young
Asian
males
and to study the
influence
of
smoking
habit on V0
2max
with
aerobic
exercise
performance
heldconstant.
Methodology
Sample
The current study was conducted in
two
phases. Phase 1
involved
a
survey
regarding
the
2.4-km
(1.5-mile)
running test
timeand
smoking
habits ofa cross-section of2,639
male
con-
scripts
between
18and 25years
old.
These
were
active
soldiers
randomly
selected
from
astratification ofthevarious
formations
in the
Singapore
Armed
Forces
(SAF).
Phase 2 consisted of a
V0
2max
test donein the
laboratory.
Thetest wasconducted on
156
soldiers
who
were
randomly
selected
from
phase 1 partici-
pants after stratifying for
2.4-km
running time and
smoking
status
(smokers
versus
nonsmokers).
Details
ofthe
two
phases
are
given
below.
Phase 1
The purpose of phase 1 was to establish by
survey
a
repre-
sentative
sample
of
smokers
and nonsmokers in the training
population ofthe
SAF
and their
2.4-km
running test
time.
The
questionnaires askedfor
biographical
data,
2.4-km
runningtest
time,
and
smoking
habits.The
survey
was administered bythe
liaison
officers
from
the units
involved
in the study after
being
briefed
by the researchers. A total of 3,200
survey
forms
were
distributed to trained
combat
soldiers.
The respondents
were
categorized
into
smokers
(SM)
and nonsmokers
(NS).
SM
were
defined
as those
who
smoked
at least one
Cigarette
daily,
and
NS
were
defmed
as those
who
have
never
smoked
Cigarettes.
Military Medicine, Vol. 163, November 1998
770
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/163/11/770/4831876
by guest
on 14 March 2018
Aerobic Power
and
Performance in Smokers
and
Nonsmokers
Phase 2
Thepurposeofphase 2 wasto determine the
V0
2max of
SM
and
NS
withinthe
performance
bands of the 2.4-kmrun. The
sample
in phase 1 wasstratified intothe
following
performance
categories:
<9.01 minutes; 9.01 to 10.00 minutes;
10.01
to
11.00 minutes;
11.01
to 12.00 minutes;
12.01
to 13.00 min-
utes; and >13.00minutes.
SM
and
NS
subjects
were
then ran-
domly
selected
from
withineach
performance
band. A total of
180subjects
were
selected
to participate in this phase.
Thesubjectsreported to the Human
Performance
Laboratory
in the
morning
after 12 hours of rest and 8 hours of
sleep.
Breakfast was
served
2 hours
before
the test.
Informed
consent
was then obtained, and heightand
weight
measurements
were
taken on a health scale that was calibrated to a
known
weight
of
5 kg
(Healthometer,
Bridgeview,
Illinois).
Skinfold
measure-
ments
(Harpenden,
WestSussex,
United
Kingdom)
were
taken
at the subscapular, triceps, suprailiac, and biceps," and con-
vertedto predicted percentage ofbodyfat using the nonnative
table of Durninand Womersley." TheV02max tests
were
con-
ducted in the
climatic
chamber
programmed
at
26°C
and
65°/0
relative
humidity.
The subjectsran on the treadmill to exhaus-
tion in
exercise
attire, and
expired
air was
collected
and ana-
1yzed
bya telemetric gasanalyzer
(Cosmed
K4,
Rome,
Italy).
The
gas
analyzer
also
monitored
heart rate. The treadmill
protoc?l
started at the speedof8km h-1 at
0°/0.
Thespeed ofthe treadmill
increased by 1.5kIn
h'
every
3 minutes until it reached 11 km
h '. Thereafter, the speed was increased by 1 km
h'
every
2
minutes until exhaustion.
V0
2max was taken as the highest
V0
2
achieved
withrespiratory quotientmaintained at 1.1forat
least 1 minute.
Statistics
Mean
differences
between
SM
and
NS
in the 2.4-kmrun time
(phase
1)
and within each
performance
band
(phase
2)
were
analyzed
with the independent t test.
Mean
differences
in
V0
2max
among
the various
2.4-kIn
run
performance
bands
were
determined through the independent analysis ofvariance
(ANOVA).
This was done by
comparing
SM
and
NS
separately
across the six
performance
bands. The
ANOVA
was also con-
ducted with all of the means
(SM
and
NS)
across the bands.
771
ANOVA
results that indicated significant
differences
were
fur-
ther tested by
Scheffe
post-hoc analysis for
pairwise
compari-
sons.
Finally,
the
pooled
mean
V0
2max values for
SM
and
NS
were
also
compared
withthe independent ttest. The
significance
level
was set at p< 0.05.
Results
Phase 1
The survey
achieved
a respondent rate of
82.5°/0.
A total of
2,639of3,200 survey
forms
were
returned.There
were
848
SM
(32.130/0)
and
1,791
NS
(67.90%).
The mean age of the entire
cohortwas 20.69 ±1.36 years.Themean agesfor the
SM
and
NS
groups
were
20.45 ±
1.41
years and 20.80 ±1.32 years,
respectively.
Of those in the
SM
group,
94.1°10
smoked
:::;20
cigarettes perday,
reflecting
the
smoking
volume
patterns ofthe
SAF
population. Conscripts in the
SM
grouphad
smoked
foran
average
of5.46 ±2.27 yearsand
smoked
an
average
of12.08±
7.47cigarettes per
day.
Anthropometric
data forthis phase
were
not
collected
because of the
difficulty
of
controlling
the
consis-
tencyofmeasurementunder the circumstances and constraints
of the study.
Anthropometric
data of the subjects in phase 2,
however,
were
collected
and are shownin
Table
I.
Ex-smokers
(N =81)
were
excluded
from
this study because of the small
sample
size.
In
addition,
the rangeof the cessation
period
(0.13-
6.17 years; mean, 2.04
years)
and the
level
of
smoking
(1-40
cigarettes per
day;
mean,11.2cigarettes per
day)
varied
widely
among
the
ex-smokers.
These
factors
could have
affected
the
validity
ofthe data, so the
ex-smokers
were
excluded
from
the
study.
The phase 1 results also
showed
that
NS
subjectsran
signif-
icantlyfaster than
SM
subjects in the
2.4-kIn
test (p <
0.001).
The mean running time for the
NS
was 10.32 ±1.03 minutes,
whereas the mean time for the
SM
was 10.59 ±1.17 minutes
(Table
I).
This
difference,
however,
was not
reflected
in the
pooled
mean
V0
2maxaftermatching the
NS
and
SM
subjectsin
phase 2 forrunning
performance.
Phase 2
Ofthe 180subjects
selected
forphase 2, only156
were
tested.
This was the result of absenteeism and mechanical
problems
TABLE
I
MEAN AGE, 2.4-KM RUNNING TIME, AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Variable
Age (years)
Height (m)
Weight (kg)
Body Mass
Index (kg
m-
2)
Body Fat
(0/0)
V02m ax (ml
kg-
I
min-I)
EXtm
(minutes)
HRmax (beats
per minute)
2.4-km
run
time
(minutes)
All
(N =2,639)
20.69 ± 1.36
10.41 ± 1.08
Phase 1
SM
(N=
848)
20.45 ± 1.41
10.59±1.17
NS
(N =1,791)
20.80 ± 1.32
10.32 ± 1.03
Phase 2
All SM NS
(N =156)
(N=
83)
(N=
73)
20.88 ± 1.49 20.51 ± 1.42 21.30 ± 1.47
1.71 ± 0.06 1.71 ± 0.06 1.71 ± 0.06
63.36 ± 8.76 63.88 ± 9.46 62.77 ± 7.92
21.55 ± 2.57 21.34 ± 2.31 21.73 ± 2.79
14.7 ± 3.3 14.6 ± 3.6 14.8 ± 3.0
53.87 ± 8.22 53.38 ± 8.58 54.42 ± 7.82
11.22 ± 2.75 11.11 ± 2.50 11.34 ± 3.02
186 ± 11 186 ± 11 186 ± 12
10.78 ± 1.48 10.75 ± 1.50 10.82 ± 1.48
MilitaryMedicine,
Vol.
163, November 1998
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/163/11/770/4831876
by guest
on 14 March 2018
772
withthe gas
analyzer
in
some
ofthe tests. As such,
some
ofthe
performance
bands did not
achieve
equal
sample
sizes
in
this
phase.Theeight
SM
subjectsforthe <9.0l-mlnute
performance
band consisted ofall
SM
subjects in phase 1
who
fell
into this
band. This was because of the inherently small number of
SM
soldiers in this band.
Details
of the subject distribution under
each
performance
band can be
found
in
Table
II.
Ofthose in the
SM
group,
96.4%
smoked
~20
cigarettes per
day,
reflecting
the
smoking
volume
patterns ofthe
SAF
population.
Conscripts in
the
SM
grouphad
smoked
foran
average
of5.71 ±2.33years
and
smoked
an
average
of 12.04 ±6.98 cigarettes per
day.
Laboratory Tests
No
significant
differences
were
found
in mean V0
2max
be-
tween
the
SM
and
NS
groups
within
each
performance
band for
the 2.4-kmrun (p =
0.05).
Thiswasalso
reflected
in the
pooled
mean V0
2max
of all the
performance
bands
between
SM
and
NS,
as
mentioned
above.
When
compared
across the
perfor-
mance bands,
however,
the V0
2max
results
were
significantly
different
withinthe
SM
group(p <
0.05)
and, separately,
within
the
NS
group (p <
0.05)
(Table
II).
Post-hoc
analysis
showed
significant
pairwise
difference
(p <
0.05)
between
the 9.01- to
10.00-minute band and the > 13.00-minute band
in
the
SM
group.
Pairwise
differences
(p <
0.05)
in the
NS
group
were
found
between
the <9.0 l-minuteband and the
10.01-
to
11.00-
minuteband, the
11.01-
to 12.00-minute band, and the
12.01-
to 13.00-minute band. The study did not
find
any significant
differences
in
maximum
heart rate
(HRmax)
between
the
SM
and
NS
groups
within
each
performance
band or
within
the
SM
and
NS
groups across the
performance
bands (p <
0.05)
(Table
II).
Exercise
time
(EXtm)
on the treadmill
protocol
was
signifi-
cantly
different
between
the
SM
and
NS
groups
only
in the
<9.01-minute
performance
band (p <
0.05).
No
within-group
differences
were
found
between
SM
and
NS
in
the other
perfor-
mancebands. The
ANOVA,
however,
found
asignificant
differ-
ence in
EXtm
between
the
performance
bands
among
the
NS
Aerobic Power
and
Performance
in
Smokers
and
Nonsmokers
subjects (p <
0.05).
Post-hoc
analysis
showed
that this was
between
the <9.01-minute band and the >lO.Ol-minute to
>13.00-minute bands (p <
0.05)
(Table
II).
For
maximum
minuteventilation
(\r
Emax),
the
only
significant
difference
found
within
performance
bands was in the <9.01-minute band. The
VEmax
was 89.10 ±16.96 Imin-Ifor the
SM
group and
108.66
±
18.941
min-I for the
NS
group(p <
0.05).
No
signifi-
cant
differences
were
found
between
SM
and
NS
within
and
acrossthe other
performance
bands
(Table
II).
Discussion
The study
found
that
NS
subjects ran faster than their
SM
counterpartsinthe2.4-kmtest.This
confirms
past reportsofan
inverse
relationship
between
smoking
habit and
aerobic
performance.P:"
Nonsmokers
were
found
to
perform
better
than
smokers
in
12-minute,22
2.4-km,23.24
and 3.2-km
25 run-
ning tests
among
military
personnel
from
17 to 59 years
old.
Ex-smokers
were
alsoreported to
perform
betterthan
smokers,
whereas
nonsmokers
performed
better than the other
two
groupsin the same running tests.2
2-
25Thepresent results,
how-
ever,
were
not consistent with a later study that
found
no
sig-
nificant
difference
in the 3.2-kmrunning time
between
smoking
and
nonsmoking
male
soldiers." This
could
be attributed to
differences
in the distance ran and the stage of training of the
subjects(4monthsversus 1-1.5 yearsof
military
training
in
the
present
study).
Decrements
of
2.3%
(light
smokers)
and
16.30/0
(heavy
smok-
ers)
were
reported in 12-minute running
performance
of
smok-
ers
compared
with nonsmokers.P Otherstudies reported
dec-
rementsof
14.80/0
in 3.2-kmrunning performance" and
10.30/0
in
2.4-km
runningperformance" in
SM
subjects
compared
with
NS
subjects. The magnitude of
decrement
(2.6%)
found
in the
present study was in
agreement
withthat of the light
smokers
described
by
Marti
et al.,
22
which
could
be attributed to the
number of cigarettes
smoked
per
day.
SM
subjects in the
TABLEn
MEAN
V0
2max,
HRmax, EXtIn,
AND
VEmax
WITHIN
EACH
PERFORMANCE
BAND
V0
2max
(ml HRmax (beats per EXtm
Group Performance Band kg-Imin-I) minute) (minutes)
VEmax
(l min-I) N
<9.01 minutes 55.13 ±6.37a181 ±911.80 ±1.64b89.10 ±16.96a8
9.01-10.00 minutes 57.15 ±8.18 c185 ±14 11.47 ±3.26 100.26 ±19.95 25
Smokers 10.01-11.00 minutes 54.06 ±8.41 191 ±12 11.64 ±1.23b101.84 ±11.51 17
11.01-12.00 minutes 52.47 ±7.19 187 ±10 10.82 ±1.98 101.64 ±16.24 17
12.01-13.00 minutes 48.44 ±8.65 186 ±710.20 ±2.72 97.31 ±17.09 10
>13.00 minutes 44.28 ±8.54 180 ±49.53 ±3.08 94.67 ±21.50 6
<9.01 minutes 61.85 ±9.35d.e187 ±714.55 ±2.60 a108.66 ±18.94 11
9.01-10.00 minutes 57.09 ±7.07 188 ±19 13.09 ±2.29 104.54 ±17.65 14
Nonsmokers 10.01-11.00 minutes 52.19 ±6.18 184 ±12 10.45 ±2.77 93.92 ±16.28 16
11.01-12.00 minutes 52.08 ±6.00 188 ±710.39 ±2.29 97.08 ±21.42 16
12.01-13.00 minutes 50.22 ±6.53 187 ±15 8.92 ±1.65 103.63 ±20.31 8
>13.00 minutes 52.85 ±7.89 183 ±59.98 ±3.04 108.94 ±18.42 8
ap< 0.05 in
ANaVA
analysis for the SM group across the performance bands.
bp< 0.05 between SM and NS within each performance band in the t test.
sp< 0.05
in
Scheffe analysis for NS for V0
2max
between the 9.01- to 10.00-minute and the >13.00-minute performance bands for the SM group.
dp< 0.05 in
ANaVA
analysis for the NS group across the performance bands.
ep < 0.05 in Scheffe analysis for Va
2max
between the <9.01-minute performance band and the 10.01- to l1.00-minute, the 11.01- to 12.00-
minute, and the 12.01- to 13.00-minute performance bands.
Military Medicine, Vol. 163, November 1998
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/163/11/770/4831876
by guest
on 14 March 2018
Aerobic
Power
and Performance
in
Smokers
and
Nonsmokers
presentstudy
smoked
an
average
of12.04±6.98 cigarettes per
day,
which
coincided
with the number
smoked
by the light
smokers
($20 cigarettes per
day)
in the
previous
study.P The
2.60/0
decrement in
performance,
however,
wasmuch
lower
than
the
10.3%
decrement
found
previously." This
could
be caused
by the higher
2.4-km
run
performance
in the current study,
which
averaged
10.59
±1.17minutes
(SM)
and
10.32
±1.03
minutes
(NS),
compared
with the means of 12.9 ±2.2 minutes
(SM)
and 11.7 ±1.9minutes
(NS)
in the
previous
study." The
current subjects
were
also
younger
(mean,
20.69 ±1.36
years;
range,
18-25
years)
than the subjects in the
previous
study
(mean,
26 ±6.2
years;
range,
18-51yearsl."Thissuggests that
the
negative
effect
smoking
has on running
performance
in-
creaseswith
age.
Inaddition tothe
smoking
status, the number
and type of cigarettes
smoked
and the strength of inhalation
could
also
influence
the smoker and may have contributed to
the
differences
observed
in
these studies.
Although
the
NS
subjects
performed
better than the
SM
sub-
jects in the 2.4-kmrun, this wasnot
reflected
in
EXtm
acrossall
the
performance
bands.
Significant
differences
in
EXtm
were
found
only
in the highest
performance
band of <9.01 minutes,
in
which
the
NS
subjects
(14.55
±2.6
minutes)
ran
23.3%
longer
on the treadmill
protocol
than their
SM
counterparts
(11.8
±1.64
minutes).
Thissuggests that the
negative
influence
of
nicotine
inhalation on
exercise
endurancewas
only
notable
among
the
high-performance
athletes. The
23.30/0
reported in
the present study is higherthan that
found
in a
previous
study
(8%
longer
EXtm
in
NS
subjects),
17
which
could
be attributable
to
differences
in fitness and
physical
activity
levels
in the sub-
jects. .
Thisstudy
found
significant
differences
inV
Emax
between
the
SM
and
NS
subjects in the <9.01-minute
performance
band
(Table
II),
suggesting that
smoking
~pairs
ventilatory
function
at this
level
of
performance.
The
VEmax
performance
at the
<9.0l-minute
performance
bandcorresponded tothe
difference
found
between
SM
and
NS
subjects in
E~tm
in the same per-
formance
band.Thisassociation
between
V
Emax
and
EXtm
sug-
gests that
ventilatory
capacity
could
be the
limiting
factor
in
aerobic
enduranceat a high
level
of
aerobic
performance.
No
significant
differences
were
found
in
V0
2max
between
8M
and
NS
within
and across all
performance
bands when running
performance
was
controlled.
This was in
agreement
with past
reports.":" although the
previous
studies did not
control
for
aerobic
performance.
Other studies,
however,
reported
lower
V0
2max
among
smokers
in the various age groups.":" The
difference
between
the present studyand the study of
Knapik
et
al."
could
be attributed to
differences
in age and
method
of
measuring V0
2max.
The current study tested V0
2max
through
a
maximal
running
protocol
with an
expired
gas
analyzer,
whereas
Knapik
and
colleagues"
predicted V0
2max
through a
sub
maximal
walking
protocol.
Their subjects
were
also older
(36-51
years)
than those in the present study (18-25
years).
Montoye
et al." also tested healthy
male
subjects who
were
older(16-69
years)
and
more
sedentarythan the population in
the present study.
Although
Dressendorfer
~t
al."
tested
younger
malesubjects(16-18
years),
the meanV0
2max
values
of the
smokers
and nonsmokers
were
7 and 4 ml kg-1
min-I
lower,
respectively,
than those in the present study. Chatterjee
et all15
found
V0
2max
differences
between
male
SM
and
NS
only
773
in the
younger
groups (20-29
years).
Although
the age
group
wasquitesimilar to that in the present study, the subjects
were
sedentaryhealthy
males,
withmuch
lower
V0
2max
(38.9
±4.6
ml
kg'
min-I
for
SM
and 42.1 ±3.2 ml kg-1min-I for
NS)
compared
withthe subjectsin the current study,whohad un-
dergone
1 to 1.5 years of
military
training.
These
comparisons
suggestthat in addition to
age,
physical
activity
level
could
play
an important
role
in
determining
the
influence
of
smoking
on
aerobic
capacity.
This is
confirmed
by other studies on
elite
sportsmen" and
male
blue-collar workers" that
found
no
dif-
ference
in V0
2max
between
SM
and
NS.
High
physical
activity
levels,
therefore,
may have a
compensatory
effect
against the
negative
physiological
influences
of
nicotine
inhalation in the
transportationand consumption of
oxygen
during
maximal
aer-
obic
performance.
The exact
physiological
mechanisms,
how-
ever,
arenot
within
the
scop~
ofthe current studyto
investigate.
Significant
differences
inV0
2max
were
also
found
among
SM,
and separately
among
NS,
acrossthe
performance
bands in this
study. The results,
however,
did not show any association be-
tween
smoking
habit and V0
2max
differences
within each
group.
It is
likely,
therefore,
that the
differences
in V0
2max
across the
performance
bands
were
attributableto
aerobic
fit-
ness rather than
smoking
habits.
Maximum
heartrates
achieved
duringthe stress test
were
not
significantly
different
between
SM
and
NS
inall the
performance
bands. This suggests that
HRmax
doesnot limit
aerobic
capac-
ityand
performance
inboth
groups.
Pastreports
generally
dem-
onstrate increased heart rate
among
smokers,
16,19, 29-34
which
maynot be true for
HRmax.
Heartrate response to the
exercise
stimulus,
therefore,
is not
influenced
by
nicotine
inhalation.
Thisis in
agreement
withthe
findings
of
Dressendorfer
et al.,17
who
alsoreported no
difference
in
HRmax
among
16-to
18-year-
old
SM
and
NS
boys.
In
conclusion,
the current study
found
that although
aerobic
performance
on the 2.4-km run
wa~
negatively
influenced
by
smoking,
this was not
extended
to V0
2max
when
aerobic
per-
formance
level
was
controlled.
Smoking,
however,
was
shown
to
adversely
affect
aerobic
enduranceand
VEmax
only
during
high-
intensity
exercise.
This result does not in any way contradict
earlier reports ofthe
negative
effects
of
smoking
on
cardiovas-
cular and respiratory health.>" It
merely
suggeststhat
aerobic
capacity and
performance
may not truly
reflect
the
effects
of
smoking
on cardiovascular and respiratory health in a
young
(18-25
years),
healthy,
and
active
population.
References
1. Blackburn H, Brozek J, Taylor HL: Common circulatory measurements in smok-
ers
and
non-smokers. Circulation 1960; 22: 1112-24.
2. US Public Health Service: The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addic-
tion. A Report of the Surgeon General. DHHS publication
(CDC)
88-8406. Wash-
ington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1988.
3. Ford E, DeStefano F: Risk factors for mortality from all
causes
and from coronary
heart
disease among persons with diabetes: findings from the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey I epidemiologic follow-up study. Am J Epide-
mio11991; 133: 1220-30.
4. McGill H: Smoking and the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Adv Exp Med Biol
1990; 273:
9-16.
5. Kuller L, Meilahn E, Ockene J: Smoking and coronary
heart
disease. In Coronary
Heart Disease: Prevention, Complications
and
Treatment, pp 205-21. Edited by
Connor WE, Bristow JD. Philadelphia, PA. Davis. 1990.
6. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of
Military
Medicine,
Vol.
163,
November
1998
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/163/11/770/4831876
by guest
on 14 March 2018
774 Aerobic Power and Performance in Smokers
and
Nonsmokers
City: State:
__
Zip: _
r------------------,
Name: _
Address
the Surgeon General . DHHS publication
(CDC)
89-8411. Washington . DC. US
Government Prtnting Office. 1989.
7. Adams L. Lonsdale D. Robinson M. Rawbone R.Guz A: Respiratory impairment
induced by smoking in children in secondary schools . Br Med J 1984; 288 :
891-5
.
8. Burrows B. Knudson R. Cline M. LebowitzM: Quantitative relationships between
cigarette smoking and ventilatory function . Am RevResplr Dis 1977: 115: 195-
205.
9. CUnningham DA. Montoye HJ . Higgins MW. KellerJB : Smoking habits. chronic
bronchitis and shortness of
breath
and physical fitness . Med Sci Sports 1972; 4:
138-45
.
10. Morrison
JF
. van Malsen S. Noakes T: Evidence for an inverse relationship
between the ventilatory response to exercise and the maximum whole body
oxygen consumption value. Eur J Appl Physiol 1983; 50: 265-72.
11. RodeA. Shephard RJ: The influence ofcigarette smoking upon the oxygen cost of
breathing in near-maximal exercise. Med Sci Sports 1971; 3:
51-5
.
12. Seppanen
A:.
Physical work capacity in relation to carbon monoxide inhalation
and tobacco smoking. Ann Clin Res 1977; 9: 269.
13. Shephard RJ. Cox M: Physical fitness . respiratory symptoms and lung function .
Respiration 1980; 39: 193-205.
14. Knapik J. Zoltick J . Rottner HC. PhUllps J. Bielenda C.
Jones
B. Drews F:
Relationships between self-reported physical activity and physical fitness in
active men . Am J Prev Med 1993; 9 :
203-8
.
15. Chatterjee S. Dey SI{, Nag SK: Maximum oxygen uptake capacity of smokers of
different age groups.
Jpn
J Appl Physiol 1987 ; 37: 837-50.
16. Montoye HJ. Gayle R, Higgins M: Smoking habits. alcohol consumption and
maximal oxygen uptake. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1980; 12:
316-21.
17. Dressendorfer RH.Amsterdam EA. Odland TM: Adolescent smoking and tts effect
on aerobic exercise tolerance. Phys Sports Med 1983; 11: 109-19.
18. Andersen LB. Haraldsd6ttlr J : Coronary heart disease risk factors . physical
activity. and fitness in young Danes. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1995 ; 27:
158-63
.
19. Chevalier RE. Bowers JA. Bondurant S. Ross JC : Circulatory and ventilatory
effects of exercise in smokers and non-smokers. J ApplPhystol1963; 18:
357-60
.
20. Morton AR.
Ho1mJk
EV: The effects of cigarette smoking on maximal oxygen
consu mption and selected physiological responses of elite team sportsmen. Eur
J Appl Physiol 1985 ; 53:
348-52.
21. Maksud MG. Baron A: Phystological responses to exercise in chronic cigarette
and marijuana users. Eur J Appl Physiol 1980; 43: 127-34 .
22. Marti B. Abelin T. Minder
CEo
Vader
JP
: Smoking. alcohol consumption. and
endurance capacity: an analysis of 6 .500 19-year-old conscripts and 4.100 jog-
gers. Prev Med 1988; 17: 79-92.
23. Conway TL. Cronan TA: Smoking and physical fitness among Navy shipboard
men.
MUit
Med 1988; 153: 589-94.
24. ConwayTL. Cronan TA: Smoking. exercise and physical fitness. Prev Med 1992;
21: 723-34.
25.
Jen
sen RG: The effect of cigarette smoking on Army physical readiness test
performance of enlisted Army Medical Department personnel.
MUit
Med 1986;
151:
83-5
.
26. Bahrke MS. Baur TS. Poland OF. Connors OF:Tobacco use and performance on
the US Army physical fitness test.
MUit
Med 1988; 153:
229-35
.
27. McArdle WO. Katch Fl. Katch VL: Body composition assessment. In Exercise
Physiology: Energy. Nutrition and Human Performance . Ed 3. pp
559-633
.
Philadelphia. PA.Leaand Febiger, 1991.
28. Durnin JVGA. Womersley J : Body fat assessed from total body density and its
estimation from skinfold thickness:measurements on 481 men and women aged
16-72
years . Br J Nutr 1974; 32 : 77-97.
29. Goldberg AN. Krone RJ. Resnekov L: Effectsof cigarette smoking on hemodynam-
Ics at rest and during exercise . I. Normal subjects. Chest 1971; 60 :
531-6
.
30. Haskell WL: Exercise -induced changes in plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Prev
Med 1984; 13:
23-6
.
31. Krumholz RA. Chevalier RE. Ross JC : Cardiopulmonary function in young smok-
ers ; a comparison of pulmonary function measurements and some cardiopulmo-
nary responses to exercise between a group of young smokers and a comparable
group of non -smokers.Ann Intern Med 1964; 60: 603-10.
32. Linder CWoDurant RH: Exercise. serum lipids. and cardiovascular disease : risk
factors in children . Pediatr Clin North Am 1982; 29: 1341-54.
33. McHenry PL. Faris JV.
Jordan
JW. Morris SN: Comparative study of cardiovas-
cular function and ventricular premature complexes in smokers and non-smok-
ers
dunng
maximal treadmill exercise. Am J Cardi ol 1977; 39 : 493-8.
34. Walter S . Nancy NR; Maximal oxygen uptake in young asymptomaticsmokers
and non-smokers. Indian J Med Res 1983 ; 77: 133-43.
toad!
301-530-5446
Mail this form to :
AMSUS Membership Department
9320 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, MD 20814
or FAX it to :
If you are a manuscript reviewer for Military Medicine,
please includeyour reviewer
numb
er : _
If your address has changed rec ently , or if it will
change in the near future, please take a
mom
ent
to let us
here at AMSUS know. In
order
to providetimely delivery
of
Military
Medicin
e, convention mailings, news letters and
oth
er
important
information, AMSUS asks that you tak e a
moment
of
your time to fill
out
the change
of
address form
below.
With
just one form, all
of
your AMSUS reco rds
can be updated.
If you ar e an author, with a manuscript pending at Military
Medicine, please includ e your manuscript
number(s): _
ADDRESS CHANGE
NOTICE
Member
#
-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As always, this information will be kept confidential lor I
the exclusive use
of
AMSUS. I
~------------------~
Military
Medicine.
Vol.
163.
November
1998
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/163/11/770/4831876
by guest
on 14 March 2018
