VU University, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Sports Med. 2011 Jun;32(6):422-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1271676. Epub 2011 May 11.
Anaerobic capacity (AnC) can be estimated by subtracting VO (2) consumed from VO (2) demand, which can be estimated from multiple submaximal exercise bouts or by gross efficiency (GE), requiring one submaximal bout. This study compares AnC using the MAOD and GE method. The precision of estimated VO (2) demand and AnC, determined by MAOD using 3 power output - VO (2) regressions, based on VO (2) from min 8-10 (10 - Y), during min 4 without (4 - Y) and with forced y-intercept (4+Y), and from GE was evaluated by the 95% confidence interval (CI). Well-trained males (n=15) performed submaximal exercise tests to establish VO (2) demand with the MAOD and GE method. To determine AnC subjects completed a constant power output trial. The 3 MAOD procedures and GE method had no significant difference for VO (2) demand and AnC. The 4+Y MAOD procedure and GE method resulted in a smaller 95% CI of VO (2) demand and AnC than the 10 - Y ( P<0.05; P<0.01) and 4 - Y ( P<0.001; P<0.01) MAOD procedures. Therefore, the 4+Y MAOD procedure and GE method are preferred for estimating AnC, but as individual differences exist, they cannot be used interchangeably.
无氧能力 (AnC) 可以通过从 VO₂ 需求中减去消耗的 VO₂ 来估计，VO₂ 需求可以通过多次次最大运动试验或总效率 (GE) 来估计，后者需要一次次最大运动试验。本研究比较了使用 MAOD 和 GE 方法估计的 AnC。使用 MAOD 通过 3 个功率输出-VO₂ 回归来确定 VO₂ 需求和 AnC 的精度，该回归基于 min 8-10 (10-Y) 的 VO₂、min 4 时没有 (4-Y) 和强制截距 (4+Y) 的 VO₂，以及基于 GE 的 VO₂，通过 95%置信区间 (CI) 进行评估。经过良好训练的男性 (n=15) 进行了次最大运动试验，使用 MAOD 和 GE 方法确定 VO₂ 需求。为了确定 AnC，受试者完成了一个恒定功率输出试验。对于 VO₂ 需求和 AnC，3 种 MAOD 程序和 GE 方法没有显著差异。与 10-Y (P<0.05；P<0.01) 和 4-Y (P<0.001；P<0.01) MAOD 程序相比，4+Y MAOD 程序和 GE 方法的 VO₂ 需求和 AnC 的 95%CI 更小。因此，4+Y MAOD 程序和 GE 方法更适合估计 AnC，但由于存在个体差异，它们不能互换使用。
