Sánchez-Otero Tania, Iglesias-Soler Eliseo, Boullosa Daniel A, Tuimil José L
1Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain; and 2Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Dec;28(12):3544-51. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000576.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a verification test (VT) performed in the field offers more confident results than do traditional criteria in the determination of maximal oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)). Twelve amateur runners (age, 36.6 ± 6.6 years) performed a maximal graded field test and after 15 minutes of passive recovery a supramaximal test to exhaustion at 105% of their velocity associated with (Equation is included in full-text article.)(v(Equation is included in full-text article.)). Traditional criteria and 2 different verification criteria were evaluated. Verification criteria were (a) maximal oxygen uptake achieved in the VT ((Equation is included in full-text article.)) must be ≤5% higher than (Equation is included in full-text article.), and (b) no significant differences of means between tests. All participants met the first verification criterion although significant differences were found between (Equation is included in full-text article.)and (Equation is included in full-text article.)(59.4 ± 5.1 vs. 56.2 ± 4.7 ml·kg·min, p < 0.01). The criteria for the plateau, peak heart rate (HRpeak), maximum respiratory exchange ratio (RERmax), and maximum blood lactate concentration ([La]max) were satisfied by 75, 66, 92, and 66 of the participants, respectively. Kappa coefficients gave a significant and substantial agreement beyond chance between traditional criteria (p < 0.001). Despite the substantial agreement, traditional criteria induced the rejection of participants that might have achieved a true (Equation is included in full-text article.)with HRpeak and [La]max being the more stringent criteria for amateur runners. A verification protocol in the field using the criterion based on individual analysis is recommended.
本研究的目的是评估在现场进行的验证测试（VT）在确定最大摄氧量（（公式包含在全文中））时是否比传统标准能提供更可靠的结果。12名业余跑步者（年龄36.6±6.6岁）进行了一次最大分级现场测试，在被动恢复15分钟后，以与（公式包含在全文中）（v（公式包含在全文中））相关的速度的105%进行力竭超最大测试。对传统标准和2种不同的验证标准进行了评估。验证标准为：（a）VT中达到的最大摄氧量（（公式包含在全文中））必须比（公式包含在全文中）高≤5%，以及（b）测试之间的均值无显著差异。所有参与者均符合第一个验证标准，尽管在（公式包含在全文中）和（公式包含在全文中）之间发现了显著差异（59.4±5.1对56.2±4.7 ml·kg·min，p<0.01）。分别有75%、66%、92%和66%的参与者满足平台期、心率峰值（HRpeak）、最大呼吸交换率（RERmax）和最大血乳酸浓度（[La]max）的标准。kappa系数表明传统标准之间存在显著且实质性的一致性，超出了偶然因素（p<0.001）。尽管存在实质性一致性，但传统标准导致一些可能达到真正（公式包含在全文中）的参与者被排除，对于业余跑步者而言，HRpeak和[La]max是更严格的标准。建议在现场使用基于个体分析的标准进行验证方案。
