Validity of Two High-Incline VO2max Protocols for College-Aged Population

Lankford De, T BartschiJake, Huntsman Keegan, Gidley Lex, Hook Tyler, Wu Yilin
{"title":"Validity of Two High-Incline VO2max Protocols for College-Aged Population","authors":"Lankford De, T BartschiJake, Huntsman Keegan, Gidley Lex, Hook Tyler, Wu Yilin","doi":"10.23937/2469-5718/1510150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The aim of the study is to validate two high-incline Graded Exercise Tests (GXT) that could be used as alternatives to the Bruce protocol to obtain VO2max values for college-aged individuals who may not be accustomed to running on a treadmill. Methods: Subjects (n = 42, male = 25, female = 17, age = 23.2 ± 2.6 years) completed the Bruce protocol as well as two high-incline GXTs (5-5, 10-5) in a randomized order. Both high incline VO2max tests were performed at a constant speed of 3.6 mph and increased in incline of 5% every 3-minutes until volitional exhaustion. The 5-5 began with a 5% grade, while the 10-5 began with a 10% grade. Outcome measurements of VO2max were compared using a 1 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze relationships between the two high-incline tests and the Bruce protocol individually. Results: No differences in VO2max was found between tests (Bruce = 45.99 ± 7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97 ± 7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99 ± 8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05). VO2max of the Bruce protocol was strongly related to both 5-5 (R = 0.95) and 10-5 (R = 0.91) tests. Bland-Altman plots between the 5-5 test and the Bruce protocol revealed 93% of data falls within ± 4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 of the arbitrary accepted range. For comparison between 10-5 and Bruce, variability increased as only 79% of the data fell within the same arbitrary range. Conclusion: Results suggest that the 5-5 test is a valid alternative to the Bruce protocol. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a non-running GXT is effective in determining VO2max in a relatively healthy, college-aged population.","PeriodicalId":91298,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study is to validate two high-incline Graded Exercise Tests (GXT) that could be used as alternatives to the Bruce protocol to obtain VO2max values for college-aged individuals who may not be accustomed to running on a treadmill. Methods: Subjects (n = 42, male = 25, female = 17, age = 23.2 ± 2.6 years) completed the Bruce protocol as well as two high-incline GXTs (5-5, 10-5) in a randomized order. Both high incline VO2max tests were performed at a constant speed of 3.6 mph and increased in incline of 5% every 3-minutes until volitional exhaustion. The 5-5 began with a 5% grade, while the 10-5 began with a 10% grade. Outcome measurements of VO2max were compared using a 1 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze relationships between the two high-incline tests and the Bruce protocol individually. Results: No differences in VO2max was found between tests (Bruce = 45.99 ± 7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97 ± 7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99 ± 8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05). VO2max of the Bruce protocol was strongly related to both 5-5 (R = 0.95) and 10-5 (R = 0.91) tests. Bland-Altman plots between the 5-5 test and the Bruce protocol revealed 93% of data falls within ± 4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 of the arbitrary accepted range. For comparison between 10-5 and Bruce, variability increased as only 79% of the data fell within the same arbitrary range. Conclusion: Results suggest that the 5-5 test is a valid alternative to the Bruce protocol. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a non-running GXT is effective in determining VO2max in a relatively healthy, college-aged population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种高倾斜度最大摄氧量方案在大学年龄人群中的有效性
目的:本研究的目的是验证两种高倾斜度分级运动测试(GXT),这两种测试可以作为布鲁斯方案的替代方案,以获得可能不习惯在跑步机上跑步的大学年龄个体的VO2max值。方法:受试者42例,男25例,女17例,年龄23.2±2.6岁,按随机顺序完成Bruce方案和2例高倾斜度GXTs(5- 5,10 -5)。两项高倾斜度VO2max测试均以3.6 mph的恒定速度进行,并每3分钟增加5%的倾斜度,直到意志衰竭。5-5从5%开始,而10-5从10%开始。VO2max结果测量值采用1 × 3重复测量方差分析进行比较。使用Pearson相关图和Bland-Altman图分别分析两个高倾斜度试验与Bruce方案之间的关系。结果:各组VO2max无显著差异(Bruce = 45.99±7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97±7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99±8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05)。布鲁斯方案的VO2max与5-5 (R = 0.95)和10-5 (R = 0.91)试验均有很强的相关性。5-5试验和Bruce方案之间的Bland-Altman图显示,93%的数据落在任意可接受范围的±4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1之内。对于10-5和Bruce之间的比较,变异性增加了,因为只有79%的数据落在相同的任意范围内。结论:结果表明,5-5试验是一种有效的替代布鲁斯方案。此外,目前的研究表明,在相对健康的大学年龄人群中,非跑步GXT可以有效地确定VO2max。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Screening for Relative Energy Deficiency in Male Volleyball Players and the Usefulness of Accelerometers Detraining in Older Women: Influence of Previous Resistance Training with Different Exercise Orders on Muscular Strength, Flexibility and Functional Capacity HIIT vs. MICT to Improve Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Exercise Capacity in Older Adult The Effect of Short-Term Hyperbaric Treatment on Long COVID Symptoms: A Pilot Study Comparison of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior among Brazilian Preschool Children during the COVID-19 Physical Distancing Period
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1