Smith P M, Doherty M, Drake D, Price M J
Department of Sport, Exercise and Biomedical Sciences, University of Luton, United Kingdom.
Int J Sports Med. 2004 Nov;25(8):616-21. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-817880.
The present study examined the impact of two exercise protocols on the attainment of peak physiological responses during arm crank ergometry (ACE). Fourteen physically active, although non-specifically trained male subjects completed two V.O (2) peak tests using an electrically braked arm ergometer (Lode Angio, Groningen, Netherlands). The tests consisted of a stepwise or rampwise increase in external workload. The order of tests was randomised and each test was separated by at least two days. Respiratory data were collected continuously using an on-line gas analysis system with sample time set at 30 s. Fingertip capillary blood samples ( approximately 20 microL) were collected at volitional exhaustion and at minute intervals for 7 min of passive recovery for the determination of peak whole blood lactate concentration. Time on the test (T (lim); s), peak minute power (PMP; W), and total work done (TWD; kJ) were also recorded. In addition to determining systematic bias using separate independent t-tests, the level of agreement was also examined by way of calculating the 95 % limits of agreement. Sub-maximal values of V.O (2), V.E, and HR were similar (p > 0.05) between test when the amount of external work completed was taken into consideration. There was no systematic bias (p > 0.05) for mean (+/- s) peak values of V.O (2) (3.12 [0.37] vs. 3.04 [0.38] L . min (-1)) or any other parameter between the step and ramp tests, respectively. Mean values of T (lim), PMP, and TWD were also similar (p > 0.05) between tests. However, the level of agreement for peak values of all test parameters was low. It is therefore concluded that while either test can be considered as being suitable for the purpose of eliciting V.O (2) peak and other physiological responses using ACE, they should not be used interchangeably for the purpose of assessing parameters linked to the aerobic capacity of the upper-body.
本研究考察了两种运动方案对臂部曲柄测力计(ACE)测试期间达到峰值生理反应的影响。14名身体活跃但未经过专门训练的男性受试者使用电动刹车臂式测力计(荷兰格罗宁根市洛德血管公司生产)完成了两次最大摄氧量(V.O₂)峰值测试。测试包括外部负荷的逐步或斜坡式增加。测试顺序是随机的,每次测试间隔至少两天。使用在线气体分析系统连续收集呼吸数据,采样时间设定为30秒。在自愿力竭时以及被动恢复7分钟期间每隔一分钟采集指尖毛细血管血样(约20微升),以测定全血乳酸峰值浓度。还记录了测试时间(T(lim);秒)、峰值分钟功率(PMP;瓦)和总功(TWD;千焦)。除了使用单独的独立t检验确定系统偏差外,还通过计算95%一致性界限来检查一致性水平。当考虑完成的外部工作量时,测试之间的V.O₂、V.E和HR的次最大值相似(p>0.05)。V.O₂的平均(±标准差)峰值(3.12[0.37]对3.04[0.38]升·分钟⁻¹)或阶梯测试和斜坡测试之间的任何其他参数均无系统偏差(p>0.05)。测试之间的T(lim)、PMP和TWD的平均值也相似(p>0.05)。然而,所有测试参数峰值的一致性水平较低。因此得出结论,虽然两种测试都可被认为适用于使用ACE激发V.O₂峰值和其他生理反应的目的,但它们不应互换使用以评估与上身有氧能力相关的参数。