Murias Juan M, Pogliaghi Silvia, Paterson Donald H
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Front Physiol. 2018 Feb 27;9:143. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00143. eCollection 2018.
The accuracy of an exhaustive ramp incremental (RI) test to determine maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O) was recently questioned and the utilization of a verification phase proposed as a gold standard. This study compared the oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O) during a RI test to that obtained during a verification phase aimed to confirm attainment of [Formula: see text]O. Sixty-one healthy males [31 older (O) 65 ± 5 yrs; 30 younger (Y) 25 ± 4 yrs] performed a RI test (15-20 W/min for O and 25 W/min for Y). At the end of the RI test, a 5-min recovery period was followed by a verification phase of constant load cycling to fatigue at either 85% ( = 16) or 105% ( = 45) of the peak power output obtained from the RI test. The highest [Formula: see text]O after the RI test (39.8 ± 11.5 mL·kg·min) and the verification phase (40.1 ± 11.2 mL·kg·min) were not different ( = 0.33) and they were highly correlated ( = 0.99; < 0.01). This response was not affected by age or intensity of the verification phase. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a very small absolute bias (-0.25 mL·kg·min, not different from 0) and a precision of ±1.56 mL·kg·min between measures. This study indicated that a verification phase does not highlight an under-estimation of [Formula: see text]O derived from a RI test, in a large and heterogeneous group of healthy younger and older men naïve to laboratory testing procedures. Moreover, only minor within-individual differences were observed between the maximal [Formula: see text]O elicited during the RI and the verification phase. Thus a verification phase does not add any validation of the determination of a [Formula: see text]O. Therefore, the recommendation that a verification phase should become a gold standard procedure, although initially appealing, is not supported by the experimental data.
最近,用于确定最大摄氧量([公式:见正文]O)的详尽递增负荷(RI)测试的准确性受到质疑,有人提议将验证阶段的使用作为金标准。本研究比较了RI测试期间的摄氧量([公式:见正文]O)与旨在确认达到[公式:见正文]O的验证阶段期间获得的摄氧量。61名健康男性[31名年龄较大(O),65±5岁;30名年龄较小(Y),25±4岁]进行了RI测试(O组为15 - 20瓦/分钟,Y组为25瓦/分钟)。在RI测试结束时,有一个5分钟的恢复期,随后是一个恒定负荷骑行至疲劳的验证阶段,负荷为RI测试获得的峰值功率输出的85%(= 16)或105%(= 45)。RI测试后最高的[公式:见正文]O(39.8±11.5毫升·千克·分钟)和验证阶段的(40.1±11.2毫升·千克·分钟)没有差异(= 0.33),且它们高度相关(= 0.99;< 0.01)。这种反应不受年龄或验证阶段强度的影响。Bland - Altman分析显示绝对偏差非常小(-0.25毫升·千克·分钟,与0无差异),测量之间的精密度为±1.56毫升·千克·分钟。本研究表明,在一大群对实验室测试程序不熟悉的健康年轻和老年男性中,验证阶段并未凸显出RI测试得出的[公式:见正文]O被低估的情况。此外,在RI测试和验证阶段诱发的最大[公式:见正文]O之间仅观察到个体内的微小差异。因此,验证阶段并未为[公式:见正文]O的测定增加任何验证。所以,尽管最初很有吸引力,但验证阶段应成为金标准程序的建议并未得到实验数据的支持。