Salgado de Oliveira University, Physical Activity Sciences Graduate Program, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Int J Sports Med. 2010 May;31(5):319-26. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1248283. Epub 2010 Mar 3.
The findings of previous studies investigating the strength of the relationships between the percentages of maximal heart rate (%HR(max)), heart rate reserve (%HRR), maximal oxygen uptake (%VO(2max)), and oxygen uptake reserve (%VO(2)R) have been equivocal. This inconsistency between studies could largely be due to differences in methodology. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine whether different VO(2max) test protocols and resting VO(2) assessment influence the relationships between the %HR(max), %HRR, %VO(2max), and %VO(2)R. Thirty-three young men performed maximal treadmill protocols (ramp, Bruce) to assess HR(max) and VO(2max). Resting VO(2) was assessed as follows: a) resting VO(2standard), using strict criteria (24 h exercise abstention, alcohol, soft drinks, or caffeine; 8 h fasting; 30 min assessment); b) resting VO(2sitting) and; c) resting VO(2standing) (both 5 min before exercise testing). The %HRR was closer to %VO(2max) than to %VO(2)R, especially in the ramp protocol (p<0.001). In the Bruce protocol, relationships were closer to the identity line, and there was no significant difference between %HRR and %VO(2max), or %VO(2)R. The VO(2max) was significantly higher in the ramp protocol compared to the Bruce protocol (p<0.001). In both protocols resting VO(2) assessment produced no significant difference in the intercepts and slopes of the %HRR-%VO(2)R relationships obtained from individual regression models. The %VO(2)R calculated using resting VO(2standard) was closer to %HRR compared to VO(2sitting) and VO(2standing). The premise that %HRR is more strongly related to %VO(2)R than to %VO(2max) was not confirmed. Methodological differences should be considered when interpreting previous studies investigating %HR(max), %HRR, %VO(2max), and %VO(2)R relationships.
先前研究调查最大心率百分比（%HR(max)）、心率储备（%HRR）、最大摄氧量（%VO(2max)）和摄氧量储备（%VO(2)R）之间关系强度的研究结果存在争议。这种研究之间的不一致性在很大程度上可能是由于方法学的差异。因此，本研究的目的是确定不同的 VO(2max)测试方案和静息 VO(2)评估是否会影响 %HR(max)、%HRR、%VO(2max)和%VO(2)R 之间的关系。33 名年轻男性进行了最大跑步机测试方案（斜坡、布鲁斯）以评估 HR(max)和 VO(2max)。静息 VO(2)的评估如下：a) 使用严格标准（24 小时运动禁食、酒精、软饮料或咖啡因；8 小时禁食；30 分钟评估）的静息 VO(2standard)；b) 静息 VO(2sitting)；和 c) 静息 VO(2standing)（在运动测试前 5 分钟）。%HRR 与 %VO(2max)的关系比与 %VO(2)R 的关系更接近，特别是在斜坡方案中（p<0.001）。在布鲁斯方案中，关系更接近身份线，%HRR 与 %VO(2max)或 %VO(2)R 之间没有显著差异。在斜坡方案中，VO(2max)显著高于布鲁斯方案（p<0.001）。在两个方案中，静息 VO(2)评估在从个体回归模型获得的 %HRR-%VO(2)R 关系的截距和斜率方面没有产生显著差异。使用静息 VO(2standard)计算的 %VO(2)R 与 %HRR 的关系比 VO(2sitting)和 VO(2standing)更接近。%HRR 与 %VO(2)R 的关系比与 %VO(2max)的关系更强的前提并未得到证实。在解释先前研究调查 %HR(max)、%HRR、%VO(2max)和%VO(2)R 关系的研究时，应考虑方法学差异。
