4.1 Article

Reproducibility of the intermittent Spartacus Run Test in obese adolescents

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
Volume 57, Issue 9, Pages 1083-1088

Publisher

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06534-8

Keywords

Visual field tests; Exercise; Pediatric obesity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Evaluating physical fitness in obese children is a core element of their clinical management that requires population specific and reliable standards to detect estimates of functional capacity. The aims of the present study were: 1) to estimate the reproducibility of the newly developed Spartacus intermittent run test in adolescents with obesity; and 2) to compare the Spartacus Test with two commonly used tests (20-meter shuttle run test [20-SRT] and the multistage track test) for assessing functional capacity in this population. METHODS: Twelve obese adolescent girls (12-15-years old, BMI: 34.5 +/- 4.1 kg/m(2)) performed a 20-SRT, a multistage track test (MSTT) and the Spartacus Test. The Spartacus Test was performed three times to evaluate its reproducibility. Maximal speed, maximal heart rate (HRmax) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured following each test. RESULTS: The adolescents reached higher maximal speeds following the Spartacus test compared to the two other tests (P<0.001 for both). HRmax was significantly higher following the Spartacus test (194.3 perpendicular to 12.4 bpm) compared to 20-SRT (173.5 perpendicular to 4.7 bpm) and MSTT (182.4 perpendicular to 11.0 bpm) (P<0.001 for both). However, RPE was not significantly different between tests. Furthermore, the Intra-Class Coefficient between the three Spartacus tests was 0.922 [0.777-0.979] for the maximal speed with a variation coefficient of only 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The Spartacus intermittent test is a reproducible test to assess functional capacity in adolescents with obesity. It could then be integrated into the childhood obesity interventions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available