Renwick John R M, Preobrazenski Nicholas, Giudice Michael D, Gurd Brendon J
School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, CANADA.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CANADA.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2024 Aug 1;17(4):1134-1154. doi: 10.70252/PVYG1833. eCollection 2024.
The purpose of the current study was to test the hypothesis that individual response classification for surrogate markers of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) will agree with response classification for VO. Surrogate markers of CRF were time to fatigue on treadmill test (TTF), time trial performance (3kTT), resting heart rate (RHR), submaximal heart rate (SubmaxHR), and submaximal ratings of perceived exertion (SubmaxRPE). Twenty-five participants were randomized into a high-intensity interval training (HIIT: = 14) group or non-exercise control group (CTL: = 11). Training consisted of four weeks of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) - 4x4 minute intervals at 90-95% HR 3 times per week. We observed poor agreement between response classification for VO and surrogate markers (agreement < 60% for all outcomes). Although surrogate markers and VO correlated at the pre- and post-intervention time points, change scores for VO were not correlated with changes in surrogate markers of CRF. Interestingly, a significant relationship ( = 0.36, = 0.02) was observed when comparing improvements in estimated training performance (VO) and change in VO Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed poor classification agreement and non-significant correlations for changes scores of VO and surrogate markers of CRF. Our results suggest that individuals concerned with their VO response seek direct measurements of VO.
心肺适能（CRF）替代指标的个体反应分类将与VO₂的反应分类一致。CRF的替代指标包括跑步机测试中的疲劳时间（TTF）、计时赛成绩（3kTT）、静息心率（RHR）、次最大心率（SubmaxHR）和次最大主观用力程度评分（SubmaxRPE）。25名参与者被随机分为高强度间歇训练组（HIIT：n = 14）或非运动对照组（CTL：n = 11）。训练包括为期四周的高强度间歇训练（HIIT）——每周3次，每次4组，每组4分钟，强度为心率储备的90 - 95%。我们观察到VO₂的反应分类与替代指标之间的一致性较差（所有结果的一致性<60%）。尽管替代指标与VO₂在干预前后的时间点存在相关性，但VO₂的变化分数与CRF替代指标的变化不相关。有趣的是，在比较估计训练表现（VO₂）的改善与VO₂的变化时，观察到显著关系（r = 0.36，p = 0.02）。与我们的假设相反，我们观察到VO₂变化分数与CRF替代指标的分类一致性较差且相关性不显著。我们的结果表明，关注其VO₂反应的个体应寻求直接测量VO₂。
