Suppr超能文献

水平跑步机跑步时高原识别中摄氧量截断标准的有效性

Validity of oxygen uptake cut-off criteria in plateau identification during horizontal treadmill running.

作者信息

Marsh Clare E

机构信息

Directorate of Sport, Exercise & Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK -

出版信息

J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019 Jan;59(1):10-16. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.07952-5. Epub 2018 Jan 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

When determining achievement of maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) during treadmill running using speed increments, the V̇O2 cut-off criteria applied during plateau identification is often not justified, not protocol specific, or not related to actual change in V̇O2 (ΔV̇O2) with speed increment, which can influence plateau achievement rates between studies. The purpose of this study was to compare plateau incidence using an individualised plateau criteria approach based on a "percentage" ΔV̇O2 compared to using previously established criteria of ΔV̇O2≤2.1 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 not developed on running speed.

METHODS

Fifty-four males completed a ramp horizontal treadmill test with 0.5 or 1.0 km∙h-1 per minute (km∙h-1∙min-1) speed increments to measure V̇O2max. Average Δ V̇O2 for the each 1-minute speed increment was determined and used to develop individualised cut-off criteria deemed to be a plateau: a final ΔV̇O2 of less than 50% of the average change elicited between consecutive speed increments during the test (V̇O2≤50%); plateau incidence using this was compared to ΔV̇O2≤2.1 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 (V̇O2≤2.1).

RESULTS

Mean ΔV̇O2 was 1.74±0.59 and 3.09±0.59 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 for 0.5 and 1.0 km∙h-1∙min-1increments respectively. V̇O2 cut-off criteria were met by 48%/65% (1.0 km∙h-1∙min-1) (P=0.234) and 53%/100% (0.5 km∙h-1∙min-1) (P=0.003) for V̇O2≤50% and V̇O2≤2.1 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of V̇O2≤2.1 resulted in distortedly high plateau achievement, particularly for smaller speed increments where the V̇O2-speed relationship was actually less than V̇O2≤2.1 making its use inappropriate. Use of V̇O2≤50% may be a suitable alternative, but as a plateau was not consistently demonstrated, application of cut-off criteria should not be a requirement in deciding whether one's achieved V̇O2max.

摘要

背景

在使用速度递增法测定跑步机跑步过程中的最大摄氧量(V̇O2max)时,在确定平台期期间应用的V̇O2截止标准通常不合理、非方案特异性,或者与速度递增时V̇O2的实际变化(ΔV̇O2)无关,这可能会影响不同研究之间的平台期达成率。本研究的目的是比较使用基于“百分比”ΔV̇O2的个体化平台期标准方法与使用先前建立的与跑步速度无关的ΔV̇O2≤2.1 mL∙kg-1∙min-1标准时的平台期发生率。

方法

54名男性完成了一项坡度水平跑步机测试,速度以每分钟0.5或1.0 km∙h-1(km∙h-1∙min-1)递增,以测量V̇O2max。确定每个1分钟速度递增的平均ΔV̇O2,并用于制定被视为平台期的个体化截止标准:最终ΔV̇O2小于测试期间连续速度递增之间引起的平均变化的50%(V̇O2≤50%);将使用此标准的平台期发生率与ΔV̇O2≤2.1 mL∙kg-1∙min-1(V̇O2≤2.1)进行比较。

结果

对于0.5和1.0 km∙h-1∙min-1的递增,平均ΔV̇O2分别为1.74±0.59和3.09±0.59 mL∙kg-1∙min-1。对于V̇O2≤50%和V̇O2≤2.1,分别有48%/65%(1.0 km∙h-1∙min-1)(P=0.234)和53%/100%(0.5 km∙h-1∙min-1)(P=0.003)达到V̇O2截止标准。

结论

使用V̇O2≤2.1导致平台期达成率过高,特别是对于较小的速度递增,此时V̇O2与速度的关系实际上小于V̇O2≤2.1,因此使用该标准不合适。使用V̇O2≤50%可能是一个合适的替代方法,但由于平台期并非始终得到证实,在决定一个人是否达到V̇O2max时,不应将截止标准的应用作为一项要求。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验