Key result
Post-exercise phosphocreatine and glycolytic measures show ~0.91 correlation with MAOD as a valid alternative.
Why the study?
Measuring maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) is time-consuming, prompting evaluation of an anaerobic capacity measure that avoids contentious assumptions and demands of the MAOD method.
Does the sum of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions provide a valid alternative to MAOD for measuring anaerobic capacity in volunteers?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Does the sum of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions provide a valid alternative to MAOD for measuring anaerobic capacity in volunteers?
Effect estimate: r ≥ 0.91
p-value: p=not significant
Post-exercise measures of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions provide a valid, less time-consuming alternative to MAOD for quantifying anaerobic capacity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Post-exercise PCr+glycolysis estimates match MAOD values; leaves open whether this simpler approach should replace MAOD in broader athletic testing.
Valenzuela et al. (2020) reported a cross-sectional. Post-exercise measures of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions (PCr+glycolysis) vs. Maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) was evaluated on Anaerobic capacity (r ≥ 0.91, p=not significant). Post-exercise measures of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions were highly correlated with MAOD (r ≥ 0.91) and not significantly different, providing a valid alternative measure.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: