Abstract
Background Individuals post-stroke walk slower than their able-bodied peers, which limits participation. This might be attributed to neurological impairments, but could also be caused by a mismatch between aerobic capacity and aerobic load of walking.
Research question What is the potential impact of aerobic capacity and aerobic load of walking on walking ability post-stroke?
Methods In a cross-sectional study, forty individuals post-stroke (more impaired N=21; preferred walking speed (PWS)<0.8m/s, less impaired N=19), and 15 able-bodied individuals performed five, 5-minute treadmill walking trials at 70%, 85%, 100%, 115% and 130% of PWS. Energy expenditure (mlO2/kg/min) and energy cost (mlO2/kg/m) were derived from oxygen uptake 
. Relative load was defined as energy expenditure divided by peak aerobic capacity 
and by 
at ventilatory threshold 
. Relative load and energy cost at PWS were compared between groups with one-way ANOVA’s. The effect of speed on these parameters was modeled with GEE.
Results Both more and less impaired individuals post-stroke showed lower PWS than able-bodied controls (0.44[0.19-0.76] and 1.04[0.81-1.43] vs 1.36[0.89-1.53] m/s) and higher relative load at PWS (50.2±14.4 and 51.7±16.8 vs 
peak and 101.9±20.5 and 97.0±27.3 vs 
). No differences in relative load were found between stroke groups. Energy cost at PWS of more impaired (0.30[.19-1.03] mlO2/kg/m) was higher than less-impaired (0.19[0.10-0.24] mlO2/kg/m) and able-bodied (0.15[0.13-0.18] mlO2/kg/m). For post-stroke individuals, increasing walking speed above PWS decreased energy cost, but resulted in a relative load above endurance threshold.
Significance Individuals post-stroke seem to reduce walking speed to prevent unsustainably high relative aerobic loads at the expense of reduced economy. When aiming to improve walking ability in individuals post-stroke, it is important to consider training aerobic capacity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NL-64431.029.18
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the VU Medical Center.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Dutch Trial Registry number: (NL-64431.029.18)
Declarations of interest: None
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data Availability
N/A
