Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Review ArticleSystematic Review

The Impact of Smoking on Maximum Oxygen Uptake

Julia R Sengbusch, Delaney L Tiernan, Nauris Tamulevicius and Mary P Martinasek
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 857-861; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08406
Julia R Sengbusch
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Delaney L Tiernan
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nauris Tamulevicius
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Mary P Martinasek
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This systematic literature review summarizes the impact of smoking on maximal oxygen uptake (maximum Embedded Image).

METHODS: Full-text articles were retrieved if the abstract met the assigned criteria. A total of 9 articles were included in the final review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included articles assessed the effects of tobacco smoking on maximum Embedded Image values.

RESULTS: Half of the articles reported a significant difference in maximum Embedded Image scores between smokers and nonsmokers, with smokers having a lower maximum Embedded Image. The other half of the articles did not identify significant differences between smokers and nonsmokers. One study found a significant difference in maximum Embedded Image in only one age group (ie, 20–29 y), but not any of the other age groups.

CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed on the effects of smoking on maximum Embedded Image to better understand any relationships or causations.

  • maximum ˙VO2
  • maximal oxygen uptake
  • aerobic capacity
  • maximum ˙VO2 test
  • cigarette smoking
  • smoking
  • smokers
  • cigarettes
  • tobacco cigarettes

Introduction

Traditional tobacco cigarettes are known to have detrimental health effects, yet the addictiveness of tobacco leads to continued use. In general, smoking continues to be a major public health issue and a preventable form of death and disability. It is estimated that 1.1 billion individuals worldwide smoke traditional cigarettes.1 One in 5 Americans die each year due to a tobacco-related illness.2 Cigarette smoking negatively impacts almost every organ system in the body. Diseases resulting from tobacco smoking include, but are not limited to, COPD, heart disease, premature birth, decreased fertility, type 2 diabetes, lower bone density, cataracts, and premature aging of the skin.2 Initial physiological changes related to tobacco smoke are found in the respiratory tract, our innate immune system and primary defense against respirable pathogens.3

Smoking increases risks for respiratory infections, worsens asthma, and can lead to COPD and cancers.2,4 Smoking accounts for 80–90% of all lung cancer deaths.5 Cigarettes contain approximately 69 chemicals that are known to be toxic and carcinogenic.6 When cigarettes are burned, the smoke produces > 7,000 chemicals.6 These toxic chemical compounds increase a smoker's risk of respiratory compromise and related diseases. The impact smoking has on the lungs brings into question how smoking affects physical activity and exercise in those individuals who smoke and exercise.

Evaluation of lung function is common in smokers and can be determined with spirometry. FEV1 as compared to FVC is a common measure to assess obstructive lung disease, commonly seen in smokers. Decreased FEV1/FVC values have been observed in young smokers, indicating early negative respiratory health changes.4,7 Several negative physiological effects occur in the lungs due to tobacco smoking. Airways in the lungs become narrow due to swelling and increased mucus production. Buildup of poisonous substances decreases the lungs clearance system. The alveoli in the lungs are permanently damaged, which inhibits gas exchange. Inhaled carbon monoxide from tobacco cigarettes binds to red blood cells and displaces oxygen, thus reducing the delivery of oxygen to the lungs, muscles, and other tissues. A decrease in oxygen will negatively impact endurance performance and lower the maximum Embedded Image score.

Many adults, regardless of athletic ability, exercise as a form of stress relief and relaxation.8 However, understanding the changes in lung function among smokers who are striving to become healthier by exercising is important. Smoking negatively affects these individuals respiratory function.9,10 It is known that individuals who smoke and engage in physical activity do not perform as well as nonsmokers.11 By comparing smokers and nonsmokers, the maximum Embedded Image scores would show whether smoking has negatively impacted performance during exercise due to decreased lung function. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies that have assessed traditional cigarette smoking impact on maximum Embedded Image, a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen a person can utilize during exercise. Current research has not systematically reviewed the effects of smoking on maximum Embedded Image scores. In essence, maximum Embedded Image serves as a measure of cardiorespiratory efficiency.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in April 2020 by 2 researchers. The researchers categorized and located studies related to the effects of cigarette smoking on maximum Embedded Image and cardiorespiratory efficiency. Databases included in the search were PubMed, Academic Search Complete, Google Scholar, NCBI, Science Direct, and ProQuest. The exercise search terms were [maximum Embedded Image], [maximum oxygen uptake], [aerobic capacity], and [maximum Embedded Image test] combined with “or.” Population terms included [cigarette smoking], [smoking], [smokers], [cigarettes], and [tobacco cigarettes] combined with “or.” Intervention and population terms were also combined with “and” and searched in “All Fields” with the limits of the English language.

Inclusion criteria included smoking/nonsmoking comparison studies that conducted a maximum Embedded Image test to measure cigarette smoking effects on subjects' maximum Embedded Image and cardiorespiratory efficiency. The study design of the research articles could be observational studies, randomized controlled trials, or experimental studies. Only full-text articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Only studies in English or translated into English were included. No exclusions were made for gender or ethnicity. No exclusions were made for subjects' physical activity level. Exclusion criteria included studies in which subjects reported preexisting or underlying health conditions and studies involving e-cigarette and marijuana.

The initial search generated a total of 10,218 eligible studies. After a review of the titles and abstracts, only 963 studies were relevant for this review. Studies were excluded if they did not include humans, were systematic reviews or meta-analyses, had an inappropriate study design, or did not look at the specific desired population. After independently reviewing the 963 results, articles looking at other forms of smoking besides traditional cigarettes were excluded, as well as any articles not relating to exercise. This further narrowed the results to 156 studies. Out of these 156 studies, those that included anaerobic exercise were eliminated, as were any studies that did not conduct a full maximum Embedded Image test with subsequent results. A total of 9 studies evaluating maximum Embedded Image in cigarette smokers met the criteria to be included. Figure 1 displays the results of the search process; Table 1 shows a summary of the study characteristics and outcomes.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Flow chart.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Study Characteristics and Outcomes

Results

A total of 3,326 people participated in the 9 studies included in this systematic review. Of those subjects, 63.9% were classified as smokers while 36.1% were classified as nonsmokers. Two of the 9 studies did not specify the number of smokers and nonsmokers tested.14,18 Two studies divided smoking subjects into moderate and heavy smoker groups.12,13 One study divided the smoking subjects into light, moderate, and heavy smoking groups.14

The study conducted at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, had the largest subject pool (N = 2,749).14 The average number of subjects in the remaining studies was 72. The age of subjects ranged from 18 y to 59 y. Two studies did not specify subject age.15,16 Regarding gender, 5 of the 9 studies used only male subjects, averaging 40 males per study.13,15–18 The study conducted at NASA Johnson Space Center included both male and female subjects, with 86.4% of the subjects being male.14 The remaining 3 studies did not specify subject gender.8,13,14

Each study contained a control group of nonsmokers. All subjects participated voluntarily. Each study's criteria for a nonsmoker was a self-report of never smoking. None of the control subjects had any reported health issues. One study matched smokers and nonsmokers.19 Seven studies stated the number of subjects in the control group.8,9,11–15 The smallest number of subjects in a control group was 9, while the largest number of subjects in a control group was 92.15,20 Two studies did not state the specific number of subjects in the control group.14,16

Four of the 9 studies reported a statistically significant difference in maximum Embedded Image between smokers and nonsmokers.12–14,16 Two studies stated that there was an overall decline in maximum Embedded Image from nonsmokers to heavy smokers.13,14 In the study by Suminski et al,14 the reduction in maximum Embedded Image between nonsmokers and heavy smokers was 6.2 mL/kg/min. There was also a statistically significant difference between active smokers and nonsmokers in the study by de Borba et al.12 Namrata et al18 reported a significant difference between light smokers and nonsmokers.

All studies assessed statistical significance as occurring at P ≤ .05 or less. Four studies did not report a significant difference in maximum Embedded Image between smokers and nonsmokers. Song et al17 did not report a significant difference. The maximum Embedded Image of smokers was 53.38 mL/kg/min, while the nonsmokers had a maximum Embedded Image of 54.42 mL/kg/min. There was also no statistically significant difference between the controls and smokers in the study by Pakkala et al.19 Nonsmokers averaged a lower maximum Embedded Image of 41.01 mL/kg/min than smokers which averaged 42.25 mL/kg/min. Gur et al16 reported no significant difference between smokers and nonsmokers, with a very small difference of 0.5 mL/kg/min in the average maximum Embedded Image. Smokers averaged a maximum Embedded Image of 38.1 mL/kg/min, whereas nonsmokers averaged 38.6 mL/kg/min. Kobayashi et al15 reported that nonsmokers had higher fitness levels with lower heart rates and percent body fat and higher maximum Embedded Image values, although this difference was not statistically significant between groups.

Four of the studies reported a statistically significant difference between smokers and nonsmokers of all ages,12–14,18 whereas 4 studies noted no difference between smokers and nonsmokers.15–17,19 Chatterjee et al,20 in the only study to stratify subjects by age, reported a statistically significant difference in maximum Embedded Image between nonsmokers and smokers, but only in subjects 20–29 y old. In the 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 y age groups, nonsmokers had higher maximum Embedded Image scores, but the differences were not statistically significant between smokers and nonsmokers. For individuals > 30 y old, the maximum Embedded Image for nonsmokers was lower than for smokers, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Three studies used bicycle ergometers to perform their maximum Embedded Image protocol.13,16,20 Each bicycle protocol required subjects to ride until exhaustion. Two protocols increased workload every 3 min, while the third protocol led to total exhaustion within 4 min for every subject. The remaining 6 studies used a treadmill to perform the maximum Embedded Image test.12,14,15,17–19

Of these 6 treadmill protocol studies, 2 specified that the Bruce protocol was used.12,17 One study performed a Balke treadmill test, while another used the Astrand nomogram method.19 Two studies used their own treadmill protocols.15,17 Each study that performed a maximum Embedded Image test on a treadmill determined that the maximum Embedded Image was the highest Embedded Image value in the last minute prior to subject exertion and test termination. Each subject had to obtain a respiratory exchange ratio value of ≥ 1.1 to determine the maximum Embedded Image. Every study utilized in this systematic review described the specific maximum Embedded Image protocol that they used.

Discussion

This study sought to systematically review the literature for studies that assessed maximum Embedded Image in individuals who self-reported that they were smokers. The act of cigarette smoking most significantly affects the respiratory system.7,9 This is due to nicotine impairing ventilatory function and constricting ventilatory pathways and blood vessels.17 Airway obstruction as well as inflammatory changes in the lungs affect their function, which is often an indicator of all-cause morbidity and mortalilty.7 The maximum Embedded Image test is an assessment of lung function that measures functional capacity of the oxygen transportation in the body.13 Exercise tolerance testing helps clinicians establish relationships between cardiorespiratory fitness, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.

This form of physical activity may be difficult for smokers impairment of respiratory function due to cigarette smoking.9 Physical activity positively changes adipose tissue profiles, which reduces obesity and enhances ventilatory muscle function.7 Previous studies have indicated that muscle tissue differences may occur between smokers and nonsmokers. Another difference between groups may be a decrease in the oxygen transporting capacity to the mitochondria in the muscle due to the action of carbon monoxide.13

In the future, more studies should focus on the number of cigarettes smoked each day, the length of smoking history, age, and gender on the impact of maximum Embedded Image. By analyzing more specific variables related to smoking and the subject demographics, the results may be unanimously conclusive.

One limitation of this study is that both acute and chronic smoking was assessed. Due to the limited number of published studies on maximum Embedded Image and smoking, all lengths of smoking history were included in this review. Another limitation of this review is that not all studies stratified subjects by age and gender. Age can have an impact on length of smoking history, which may affect the amount of lung damage done.

Conclusions

The variable results of this systematic review may be due to the variety of subject characteristics captured in the studies, such as differences in the quantity of cigarettes smoked each day, length of smoking history, age, and gender.12,13,15 Physical activity can impact a Embedded Image score, thus making it a factor that needs to be considered in the future.

The 9 studies in this review evaluated the impact of smoking on maximum Embedded Image. This focus does not minimize the dozens of other negative effects that smoking can have on an individual. Developing a lung disease such as COPD, pneumonia, or even lung cancer from smoking will eventually negatively impact an individual's maximum Embedded Image. Only 2 studies specified that the subjects were sedentary.12,13 One study noted that subjects engaged in regular physical activity.15 Three studies did not find statistically significant differences between groups.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Nauris Tamulevicius PhD, Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, University of Tampa, 401 W Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, Florida 33606. E-mail: ntamulevicius{at}ut.edu
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). Prevalence of tobacco smoking. 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/theme-details/GHO/tobacco-control. Accessed July 3, 2020.
  2. 2.↵
    American Cancer Society. Health risks of smoking. 2020. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/health-risks-of-smoking-tobacco.html. Accessed July 15, 2020.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Strzelak A,
    2. Ratajczak A,
    3. Adamiec A,
    4. Feleszko W
    . Tobacco smoke induces and alters immune responses in the lung triggering inflammation, allergy, asthma and other lung diseases: a mechanistic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(5):1033.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Domagala-Kulawik J
    . Effects of cigarette smoke on the lung and systemic immunity. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008;6(59 Suppl):19–34.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What are the risk factors for lung cancer? 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm. Accessed December 30, 2020.
  6. 6.↵
    American Lung Association. What's in a cigarette? 2020. Available at: https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/whats-in-a-cigarette. Accessed July 15, 2020.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dugral E,
    2. Balkanci D
    . Effects of smoking and physical exercise on respiratory function test results in students of university: a cross-sectional study. Medicine 2019;98(32):e16596.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Anxiety and Depression Association of America. Physical Activity Reduces Stress. 2020. Available at: https://adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/related-illnesses/other-related-conditions/stress/physical-activity-reduces-st. Accessed July 10, 2020.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bilici M,
    2. Genç A
    . The effects of smoking addiction and physical activity on some respiratory functions in female university students. Pedagog Phys Cult Sports 2020;24(2):54–58.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Tantisuwat A,
    2. Thaveeratitham P
    . Effects of smoking on chest expansion, lung function, and respiratory muscle strength of youths. J Phys Ther Sci 2014;26(2):167–170.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lee CL,
    2. Chang WD
    . The effects of cigarette smoking on aerobic and anaerobic capacity and heart rate variability among female university students. Int J Womens Health 2013;5:667–679.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. de Borba AT,
    2. Jost RT,
    3. Gass R,
    4. Nedel FB,
    5. Cardoso DM,
    6. Pohl HH,
    7. et al
    . The influence of active and passive smoking on the cardiorespiratory fitness of adults. Multidiscip Respir Med 2014;9(1):34.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ingemann-Hansen T,
    2. Halkjaer-Kristensen J
    . Cigarette smoking and maximal oxygen consumption rate in humans. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1977;37(2):143–148.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Suminski RR,
    2. Wier LT,
    3. Poston W,
    4. Arenare B,
    5. Randles A,
    6. Jackson AS
    . The effect of habitual smoking on measured and predicted VO2max. J Phys Act Health 2009;6(5):667–673.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kobayashi Y,
    2. Takeuchi T,
    3. Hosoi T,
    4. Loeppky JA
    . Effects of habitual smoking on cardiorespiratory responses to sub-maximal exercise. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Anthropol 2004;23(5):163–169.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gür H,
    2. Pündük Z,
    3. Akova B,
    4. Sürmen-Gür E
    . Maximal cardiorespiratory capacity in young sedentary male chronic smokers. Respiration 2000;67(4):474.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Song EYM,
    2. Lim CL,
    3. Lim MK
    . A comparison of maximum oxygen consumption, aerobic performance, and endurance in young and active male smokers and nonsmokers. Mil Med 1998;163(11):770–774.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Namrata P
    . Comparison of VO2max on Balke treadmill test in light smokers and non smokers. Int J Sci Res 2018;7(9):185.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Pakkala A,
    2. Raghavendra T,
    3. Ganashree CP
    . A study of the short term effect of cigarette smoking on cardiopulmonary efficiency. Saudi J Sports Med 2013;13(2):81.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Chatterjee S,
    2. Dey SK,
    3. Nag SK
    . Maximum oxygen uptake capacity of smokers of different age groups. Jpn J Physiol 1987;37(5):837–850.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (5)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 5
1 May 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Impact of Smoking on Maximum Oxygen Uptake
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Impact of Smoking on Maximum Oxygen Uptake
Julia R Sengbusch, Delaney L Tiernan, Nauris Tamulevicius, Mary P Martinasek
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 857-861; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08406

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The Impact of Smoking on Maximum Oxygen Uptake
Julia R Sengbusch, Delaney L Tiernan, Nauris Tamulevicius, Mary P Martinasek
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 857-861; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08406
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • maximum ˙VO2
  • maximal oxygen uptake
  • aerobic capacity
  • maximum ˙VO2 test
  • cigarette smoking
  • smoking
  • smokers
  • cigarettes
  • tobacco cigarettes

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire