两种高倾斜度最大摄氧量方案在大学年龄人群中的有效性

Lankford De, T BartschiJake, Huntsman Keegan, Gidley Lex, Hook Tyler, Wu Yilin
{"title":"两种高倾斜度最大摄氧量方案在大学年龄人群中的有效性","authors":"Lankford De, T BartschiJake, Huntsman Keegan, Gidley Lex, Hook Tyler, Wu Yilin","doi":"10.23937/2469-5718/1510150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The aim of the study is to validate two high-incline Graded Exercise Tests (GXT) that could be used as alternatives to the Bruce protocol to obtain VO2max values for college-aged individuals who may not be accustomed to running on a treadmill. Methods: Subjects (n = 42, male = 25, female = 17, age = 23.2 ± 2.6 years) completed the Bruce protocol as well as two high-incline GXTs (5-5, 10-5) in a randomized order. Both high incline VO2max tests were performed at a constant speed of 3.6 mph and increased in incline of 5% every 3-minutes until volitional exhaustion. The 5-5 began with a 5% grade, while the 10-5 began with a 10% grade. Outcome measurements of VO2max were compared using a 1 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze relationships between the two high-incline tests and the Bruce protocol individually. Results: No differences in VO2max was found between tests (Bruce = 45.99 ± 7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97 ± 7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99 ± 8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05). VO2max of the Bruce protocol was strongly related to both 5-5 (R = 0.95) and 10-5 (R = 0.91) tests. Bland-Altman plots between the 5-5 test and the Bruce protocol revealed 93% of data falls within ± 4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 of the arbitrary accepted range. For comparison between 10-5 and Bruce, variability increased as only 79% of the data fell within the same arbitrary range. Conclusion: Results suggest that the 5-5 test is a valid alternative to the Bruce protocol. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a non-running GXT is effective in determining VO2max in a relatively healthy, college-aged population.","PeriodicalId":91298,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of Two High-Incline VO2max Protocols for College-Aged Population\",\"authors\":\"Lankford De, T BartschiJake, Huntsman Keegan, Gidley Lex, Hook Tyler, Wu Yilin\",\"doi\":\"10.23937/2469-5718/1510150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The aim of the study is to validate two high-incline Graded Exercise Tests (GXT) that could be used as alternatives to the Bruce protocol to obtain VO2max values for college-aged individuals who may not be accustomed to running on a treadmill. Methods: Subjects (n = 42, male = 25, female = 17, age = 23.2 ± 2.6 years) completed the Bruce protocol as well as two high-incline GXTs (5-5, 10-5) in a randomized order. Both high incline VO2max tests were performed at a constant speed of 3.6 mph and increased in incline of 5% every 3-minutes until volitional exhaustion. The 5-5 began with a 5% grade, while the 10-5 began with a 10% grade. Outcome measurements of VO2max were compared using a 1 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze relationships between the two high-incline tests and the Bruce protocol individually. Results: No differences in VO2max was found between tests (Bruce = 45.99 ± 7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97 ± 7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99 ± 8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05). VO2max of the Bruce protocol was strongly related to both 5-5 (R = 0.95) and 10-5 (R = 0.91) tests. Bland-Altman plots between the 5-5 test and the Bruce protocol revealed 93% of data falls within ± 4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 of the arbitrary accepted range. For comparison between 10-5 and Bruce, variability increased as only 79% of the data fell within the same arbitrary range. Conclusion: Results suggest that the 5-5 test is a valid alternative to the Bruce protocol. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a non-running GXT is effective in determining VO2max in a relatively healthy, college-aged population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of sports and exercise medicine\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of sports and exercise medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是验证两种高倾斜度分级运动测试(GXT),这两种测试可以作为布鲁斯方案的替代方案,以获得可能不习惯在跑步机上跑步的大学年龄个体的VO2max值。方法:受试者42例,男25例,女17例,年龄23.2±2.6岁,按随机顺序完成Bruce方案和2例高倾斜度GXTs(5- 5,10 -5)。两项高倾斜度VO2max测试均以3.6 mph的恒定速度进行,并每3分钟增加5%的倾斜度,直到意志衰竭。5-5从5%开始,而10-5从10%开始。VO2max结果测量值采用1 × 3重复测量方差分析进行比较。使用Pearson相关图和Bland-Altman图分别分析两个高倾斜度试验与Bruce方案之间的关系。结果:各组VO2max无显著差异(Bruce = 45.99±7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97±7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99±8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05)。布鲁斯方案的VO2max与5-5 (R = 0.95)和10-5 (R = 0.91)试验均有很强的相关性。5-5试验和Bruce方案之间的Bland-Altman图显示,93%的数据落在任意可接受范围的±4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1之内。对于10-5和Bruce之间的比较,变异性增加了,因为只有79%的数据落在相同的任意范围内。结论:结果表明,5-5试验是一种有效的替代布鲁斯方案。此外,目前的研究表明,在相对健康的大学年龄人群中,非跑步GXT可以有效地确定VO2max。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity of Two High-Incline VO2max Protocols for College-Aged Population
Purpose: The aim of the study is to validate two high-incline Graded Exercise Tests (GXT) that could be used as alternatives to the Bruce protocol to obtain VO2max values for college-aged individuals who may not be accustomed to running on a treadmill. Methods: Subjects (n = 42, male = 25, female = 17, age = 23.2 ± 2.6 years) completed the Bruce protocol as well as two high-incline GXTs (5-5, 10-5) in a randomized order. Both high incline VO2max tests were performed at a constant speed of 3.6 mph and increased in incline of 5% every 3-minutes until volitional exhaustion. The 5-5 began with a 5% grade, while the 10-5 began with a 10% grade. Outcome measurements of VO2max were compared using a 1 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze relationships between the two high-incline tests and the Bruce protocol individually. Results: No differences in VO2max was found between tests (Bruce = 45.99 ± 7.57 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 5-5 = 44.97 ± 7.71 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, 10-5 = 43.99 ± 8.01 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, p > 0.05). VO2max of the Bruce protocol was strongly related to both 5-5 (R = 0.95) and 10-5 (R = 0.91) tests. Bland-Altman plots between the 5-5 test and the Bruce protocol revealed 93% of data falls within ± 4.5 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 of the arbitrary accepted range. For comparison between 10-5 and Bruce, variability increased as only 79% of the data fell within the same arbitrary range. Conclusion: Results suggest that the 5-5 test is a valid alternative to the Bruce protocol. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a non-running GXT is effective in determining VO2max in a relatively healthy, college-aged population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信