Zagatto Alessandro M, Nakamura Fabio Y, Milioni Fabio, Miyagi Willian E, de Poli Rodrigo A B, Padulo Johnny, Bragazzi Nicola L, Papoti Marcelo
a Laboratory of Physiology and Sport Performance (LAFIDE), School of Sciences , São Paulo state University (Unesp) , Bauru , Brazil.
b Post-Graduate Program in Movement Sciences , Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) , Rio Claro , Brazil.
J Sports Sci. 2017 Dec;35(24):2453-2460. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1273539. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the sensitivity of an alternative maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) method to discriminate the "anaerobic" capacity while comparing: least trained (LT) participants (n = 12), moderately trained (MT) participants (n = 12), endurance trained (ET) participants (n = 16), and rugby (RG) players (n = 11). Participants underwent a graded exercise test on a treadmill and a supramaximal effort for assessing MAOD. MAOD was calculated as the sum of oxygen equivalents from the phosphagen and glycolytic metabolic pathways. MAOD was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in RG (64.4 ± 12.1 mL · kg) than in ET (56.8 ± 5.4 mL · kg; effect size [ES] = 0.77; +13.5%), MT (53.8 ± 5.3 mL · kg; ES = 1.08; +19.8%), and LT (49.9 ± 4.5 mL · kg; ES = 1.50; +36.4%). In addition, the magnitude-based inference analysis revealed that MAOD was likely (LT vs. MT), very likely (MT vs. RG, and ET vs. RG) and most likely (LT vs. ET, and LT vs. RG) different between all groups, except for MT and ET, which presented an unclear difference. In conclusion, MAOD was sensitive enough to distinguish the "anaerobic" capacity in individuals with different training status, especially for RG players compared with LT participants and MT participants.
本研究的目的是调查一种替代的最大累积氧亏（MAOD）方法在区分“无氧”能力方面的敏感性，同时比较：训练最少（LT）的参与者（n = 12）、训练适度（MT）的参与者（n = 12）、耐力训练（ET）的参与者（n = 16）和橄榄球（RG）运动员（n = 11）。参与者在跑步机上进行了分级运动测试，并进行了超最大强度运动以评估MAOD。MAOD计算为磷酸原和糖酵解代谢途径中氧当量的总和。RG组的MAOD（64.4±12.1 mL·kg）显著高于ET组（56.8±5.4 mL·kg；效应量[ES]=0.77；+13.5%）、MT组（53.8±5.3 mL·kg；ES = 1.08；+19.8%）和LT组（49.9±4.5 mL·kg；ES = 1.50；+36.4%）（P<0.05）。此外，基于量级的推断分析表明，除MT组和ET组之间差异不明确外，所有组之间的MAOD可能（LT组与MT组）、非常可能（MT组与RG组，以及ET组与RG组）和极可能（LT组与ET组，以及LT组与RG组）存在差异。总之，MAOD足够敏感，能够区分不同训练状态个体的“无氧”能力，特别是与LT参与者和MT参与者相比，RG运动员的MAOD更明显。
