Benefit of Repeated Receptor Stimulation as a Spaceflight Medical Tool to Promote Cardiovascular Fitness: Different Orthostatic Paradigms Compared

We used various orthostatic stimulus combinations to better understand the physiology and countermeasure potential of repeated change of body position in humans. The purpose of the investigations reported was threefold: To investigate cardiovascular and hormonal effects of repeated transition between partially antiorthostatic (-30° HDT) and partially head-up passive body tilt (+30° HUT). Protocol Y denotes the repeated transition between these two body positions; To apply, in the same test persons, repeated transition between supine and passive upright (Protocol X), and to compare the effect of the two protocols; To find out which stimulus pattern provides the largest physiological effects and, hence, presumably the largest countermeasure potential. We chose our tilt protocol according to tilt angle sine ranges: The sine difference is 1.0 both in Protocol X (sine=0 vs. sine=1.0) and Y (sine=-0.5 vs. sine=+0.5) since this difference, and not the angle change per se, determines hydrostatic effect intensities. Due to longer-lasting neurohormonal effects elicited by tilting procedures, they all should be a useful countermeasure against post-immobilization orthostatic instability, a conjecture not yet been tested in this specific form. Therefore, one of the questions asked in this study were if movement between the two defined body positions produces similar changes when employing Protocol X vs. Protocol Y.