Key result
PCr+glycolysis estimation strongly correlates with oxygen deficit despite measuring ~3 mL/kg lower during running.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to determine if the sum of estimated phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions provides an alternative to oxygen deficit for quantifying anaerobic contributions in running.
Observational (n=30)
Mean Difference: -3
p-value: p=<.05
The sum of phosphocreatine and glycolytic contributions provides a valid alternative to oxygen deficit for quantifying anaerobic contribution in running.
May support PCr+glycolysis as alternative to oxygen deficit for anaerobic assessment; hypothesis-generating pending validation in larger athletic cohorts.
The purpose of this study was to determine if the sum of estimates of the phosphocreatine contribution and the glycolytic contribution (we refer to this sum as PCr+glycolysis) provides an alternative to oxygen deficit as a way to quantify the anaerobic contribution in running.Thirty university students performed three treadmill tests, each test at one speed individually selected for each participant; one test was terminated after 3 min, one after 7 min, and one at exhaustion (mean ± SD, 10.3 ± 0.4 min).Oxygen deficit was calculated by subtraction of the accumulated oxygen uptake from the total oxygen cost.Phosphocreatine and glycolysis contributions were determined from post-exercise VO2 responses and blood lactate concentrations, respectively.The mean values for PCr+glycolysis was ~3 mL•kg -1 lower (p < .05)than oxygen deficit across three exercise durations, but well correlated (r ≥ .80,p < .05) at each.These results confirm the validity of PCr+glycolysis as an alternative to oxygen deficit to quantify the anaerobic contribution in running exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hill et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Healthy university students (n=30). PCr+glycolysis estimation vs. Oxygen deficit was evaluated on Anaerobic contribution in running (MD ~3 mL/kg lower, p=<.05). PCr+glycolysis estimation was ~3 mL/kg lower than oxygen deficit (p < .05) but strongly correlated (r ≥ .80), validating it as an alternative to quantify anaerobic contribution in running.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: