Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Center of Sports Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2021 Jul;121(7):1899-1907. doi: 10.1007/s00421-021-04620-9. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
The aims of this study were (1) to investigate if the respiratory compensation point (RCP) as derived from ramp incremental (RI) exercise could accurately predict the power output (PO) at the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS), and (2) to compare its accuracy with the second lactate threshold (LT) obtained from step incremental (SI) exercise.
Nineteen participants performed a RI test (30 W·min) to determine RCP, a SI test (30 or 40 W·3 min) to determine LT, and two or more constant work rate (CWR) tests to determine MLSS. For each participant, the [Formula: see text]O/PO relationship for RI and CWR exercise was established. The ramp-identified PO at RCP was corrected by accounting for the gap between these relationships using the individually determined [Formula: see text] O/PO regression above GET (RCP) or using a fixed regression slope (RCP). LT was determined using four methods: D, modified D (ModD), 4-mM threshold (LT) and an expert-determined LT (LT).
RCP (235 ± 69 W), RCP (228 ± 58 W) and LT (227 ± 61 W) were not different from MLSS (225 ± 60 W). D (203 ± 53 W) underestimated MLSS, while RCP (280 ± 60 W), ModD (235 ± 67 W) and LT (234 ± 68 W) overestimated MLSS. The [Formula: see text]O at RCP (3.13 ± 0.79L·min) and LT (2.99 ± 0.19L·min) did not differ from MLSS (3.05 ± 0.72 L·min).
This study demonstrated that RCP as derived from RI exercise and LT as derived from SI exercise can be equally accurate to determine the PO associated with MLSS. Although these results confirmed the suitability of RI and SI tests for this purpose, they also highlighted the importance of an appropriate threshold method selection and the eye of the expert.
本研究的目的为:(1)探究从递增斜坡(RI)运动中得出的呼吸补偿点(RCP)是否能够准确预测最大乳酸稳定状态(MLSS)下的功率输出(PO),(2)并与从递增台阶(SI)运动中得出的第二个乳酸阈(LT)相比较。
19 名参与者进行了 RI 测试(30W·min)以确定 RCP,进行了 SI 测试(30 或 40W·3min)以确定 LT,以及 2 个或更多恒功测试(CWR)以确定 MLSS。对于每个参与者,都建立了 RI 和 CWR 运动的 [Formula: see text]O/PO 关系。通过考虑使用个体确定的 GET 以上的 [Formula: see text]O/PO 回归(RCP)或使用固定回归斜率(RCP)来弥补这些关系之间的差距,对 RCP 时的斜坡确定的 PO 进行校正。使用以下四种方法确定 LT:D、改良 D(ModD)、4mM 阈值(LT)和专家确定的 LT(LT)。
RCP(235±69W)、RCP(228±58W)和 LT(227±61W)与 MLSS(225±60W)没有差异。D(203±53W)低估了 MLSS,而 RCP(280±60W)、ModD(235±67W)和 LT(234±68W)则高估了 MLSS。RCP(3.13±0.79L·min)和 LT(2.99±0.19L·min)时的 [Formula: see text]O 与 MLSS(3.05±0.72L·min)没有差异。
本研究表明,RI 运动中得出的 RCP 和 SI 运动中得出的 LT 同样可以准确地确定与 MLSS 相关的 PO。尽管这些结果证实了 RI 和 SI 测试在这方面的适用性,但它们也突出了适当的阈值方法选择和专家的眼光的重要性。