Why the study?
No studies had evaluated the 3-kilometer running test to predict VO2max in water sports athletes.
Does a 3-kilometer running test accurately predict VO2max in water sports athletes?
Does a 3-kilometer running test accurately predict VO2max in water sports athletes?
A 3-kilometer running test can accurately predict VO2max in water sports athletes, offering a practical alternative to laboratory-based maximal graded exercise testing.
May support 3 km run for VO2max estimation in water athletes; leaves open prospective validation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: No studies have reported the 3-kilometer running test (3KRT) intending to predict VO2max for water sports athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a new model to predict the maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max) for water sports athletes based on 3KRT. METHODS: One hundred and two water sports athletes completed two sessions of experiments consisting of a maximal graded exercise test (GXT) and a 3KRT. Multiple linear regression was applied to predict VO2max value based on the performance and physiological responses of 3KRT, along with participants' anthropometric and demographic variables. The predicted residual error sum of square (PRESS) and error terms (constant error and total error) were calculated to further evaluate the predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Two significant prediction models based on elapsed exercise time (T3KRT), post-exercise heart rate (PHR3KRT), body mass, and gender were proposed. One model including PHR3KRT was identified (VO2max=120.77-0.028×T3KRT [second]-0.11×PHR3KRT [bpm]-0.334×body mass [kg]+8.70×gender [1: male, 0: female]), with an adjusted R2 of 0.723. Another model excluding PHR3KRT was also identified (VO2max=103.65-0.034×T3KRT [second]-0.317×Body mass [kg] + 7.89×gender [1: male, 0: female]), with an adjusted R2 of 0.713. Both models were further validated by the result of PRESS statistics. CONCLUSIONS: This endurance 3-kilometer running test accurately predicted VO2max value for water sports athletes (rowers, canoeists, and kayakers), and the model excluding PHR3KRT would be easier to use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: