Bosquet Laurent, Duchene Antoine, Delhors Paul Raoul, Dupont Gregory, Carter Helen
School of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Sports Sci. 2008 Apr;26(6):663-70. doi: 10.1080/02640410701744420.
The aim of this study was to compare maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (hereafter O2 deficit) estimated from the methods of Whipp et al. (1986), Medbo et al. (1988), and Hill et al. (1998) to determine whether they agree sufficiently to be used interchangeably. Nineteen moderately to highly trained endurance runners first performed an incremental test to exhaustion for the determination of maximal oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O(2max)) and peak treadmill speed, followed by six randomly ordered constant-speed tests at 95, 100, 105, 110, 110, and 120% of peak treadmill speed. All tests were separated by at least 72 h and were performed within 4 weeks. The method of Whipp produced an O(2) deficit estimate that was lower than that derived from the method of Hill or Medbo (bias +/- 95% limits of agreement: -29.6 +/- 36.6 and -26.1 +/- 32.8 ml . kg(-1), respectively; P < 0.001). The O2 deficit did not differ between the methods of Hill and Medbo (bias +/- 95% limits of agreement: 3.5 +/- 41.6 ml . kg(-1); n.s.). However, poor correlations (0.21 < r < 0.33; n.s.) together with wide limits of agreement between O2 deficit estimates (70 - 80% of the mean response) clearly question using these methods interchangeably.
本研究的目的是比较根据Whipp等人（1986年）、Medbo等人（1988年）和Hill等人（1998年）的方法估算的最大累积氧亏缺（以下简称氧亏缺），以确定它们是否足够一致，从而可以互换使用。19名中度至高度训练的耐力跑者首先进行递增负荷测试直至力竭，以测定最大摄氧量（[V̇]O₂max）和跑步机峰值速度，随后以跑步机峰值速度的95%、100%、105%、110%、110%和120%进行六项随机排序的恒速测试。所有测试之间至少间隔72小时，且在4周内完成。Whipp的方法得出的氧亏缺估计值低于Hill或Medbo方法得出的值（偏差±95%一致性界限：分别为-29.6±36.6和-26.1±32.8 ml·kg⁻¹；P<0.001）。Hill和Medbo方法得出的氧亏缺没有差异（偏差±95%一致性界限：3.5±41.6 ml·kg⁻¹；无统计学意义）。然而，相关性较差（r在0.21至0.33之间；无统计学意义），同时氧亏缺估计值之间的一致性界限较宽（平均反应的70%-80%），这显然对这些方法能否互换使用提出了质疑。
