4.6 Article

Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake as a Verification After an Incremental Test Versus Without a Test

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.739745

Keywords

maximum oxygen uptake; VO2 plateau; physical fitness; cycle ergometer; verification phase; incremental test

Categories

Funding

  1. University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw [PN/BK/2020/07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found no statistically significant differences in VO2peak values measured through different tests among young individuals, suggesting that additional verification tests for maximum oxygen uptake may not be necessary in most cases.
The study was conducted to compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) measured with the incremental graded test (GXT) (VO2peak) and two tests to verify maximum oxygen uptake, performed 15 min after the incremental test (VO2peak1) and on a separate day (VO2peak2). The aim was to determine which of the verification tests is more accurate and, more generally, to validate the VO2max obtained in the incremental graded test on cycle ergometer. The study involved 23 participants with varying levels of physical activity. Analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences for repeated measurements (F = 2.28, p = 0.118, eta(2) = 0.12). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a small bias of the VO2peak1 results compared to the VO2peak (0.4 mlmin(-1)kg(-1)) and VO2peak2 results compared to the VO2peak (-0.76 mlmin(-1)kg(-1)). In isolated cases, it was observed that VO2peak1 and VO2peak2 differed by more than 5% from VO2peak. Considering the above, it can be stated that among young people, there are no statistically significant differences between the values of VO2peak measured in the following tests. However, in individual cases, the need to verify the maximum oxygen uptake is stated, but performing a second verification test on a separate day has no additional benefit.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available