Why the study?
Does a verification test performed in the field offer more confident results than traditional criteria in the determination of maximal oxygen uptake in amateur runners?
Does a verification test performed in the field offer more confident results than traditional criteria in the determination of maximal oxygen uptake in amateur runners?
A verification protocol in the field using individual analysis criteria is recommended over traditional criteria for determining true VO2max in amateur runners, as traditional criteria may induce the rejection of valid tests.
Verification met by all runners despite VO2 differences; leaves open whether field testing improves VO2max confidence over traditional criteria.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a verification test (VT) performed in the field offers more confident results than do traditional criteria in the determination of maximal oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)). Twelve amateur runners (age, 36.6 ± 6.6 years) performed a maximal graded field test and after 15 minutes of passive recovery a supramaximal test to exhaustion at 105% of their velocity associated with (Equation is included in full-text article.)(v(Equation is included in full-text article.)). Traditional criteria and 2 different verification criteria were evaluated. Verification criteria were (a) maximal oxygen uptake achieved in the VT ((Equation is included in full-text article.)) must be ≤5% higher than (Equation is included in full-text article.), and (b) no significant differences of means between tests. All participants met the first verification criterion although significant differences were found between (Equation is included in full-text article.)and (Equation is included in full-text article.)(59.4 ± 5.1 vs. 56.2 ± 4.7 ml·kg·min, p < 0.01). The criteria for the plateau, peak heart rate (HRpeak), maximum respiratory exchange ratio (RERmax), and maximum blood lactate concentration ([La]max) were satisfied by 75, 66, 92, and 66 of the participants, respectively. Kappa coefficients gave a significant and substantial agreement beyond chance between traditional criteria (p < 0.001). Despite the substantial agreement, traditional criteria induced the rejection of participants that might have achieved a true (Equation is included in full-text article.)with HRpeak and [La]max being the more stringent criteria for amateur runners. A verification protocol in the field using the criterion based on individual analysis is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sánchez-Otero et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: