Literature DB >> 27074437

Comparison between continuous and discontinuous incremental treadmill test to assess velocity at V̇O2max.

Andrea Riboli1, Emiliano Cè1, Susanna Rampichini1, Massimo Venturelli1, Giampietro Alberti1, Eloisa Limonta1, Arsenio Veicsteinas1,2, Fabio Esposito3,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The velocity associated with maximum aerobic power (vV̇O2max) is an important physiological parameter, which is utilized to determine relative workloads on the field. The testing modality adopted to evaluate it, though, may cause differences in vV̇O2max assessment and, in turn, in training intensity. The aim of the study was to compare two different testing modalities (continuous incremental ramp and discontinuous square wave (SW) protocols) for vV̇O2max assessment on the treadmill.
METHODS: Seventeen physically active participants performed three maximum incremental tests on a treadmill: two continuous ramp protocols, with different ramp slopes (R1, 1 km/h every minute; and R2, 1 km/h every 2 minutes), and one discontinuous SW protocol, in random order, for maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) and vV̇O2max determination. Cardiorespiratory and metabolic parameters were collected breath-by-breath at rest and during exercise.
RESULTS: vV̇O2max was significantly higher in R1 and R2 compared to SW (20.7±0.5, 18.6±0.4, 16.8±0.6 km/h for R1, R2, and SW, respectively; P<0.001). No significant differences were found among protocols for V̇O2max (56.7±1.1, 57.0±1.2, and 56.6±1.2 mL/min/kg for SW, R1, R2, respectively) as well as for expiratory ventilation, carbon dioxide production, blood lactate concentration, and heart rate.
CONCLUSIONS: In spite of similar V̇O2max values, vV̇O2max was higher during continuous incremental ramp tests compared to SW possibly due to the longer time for cardiorespiratory and metabolic adjustments, suggesting different aerobic and anaerobic metabolism involvement. The differences among protocols should be considered when vV̇O2max is used for training purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27074437     DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06393-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Med Phys Fitness        ISSN: 0022-4707            Impact factor:   1.637


  3 in total

1.  Cardiovascular and metabolic responses during indoor climbing and laboratory cycling exercise in advanced and élite climbers.

Authors:  Eloisa Limonta; Alfredo Brighenti; Susanna Rampichini; Emiliano Cè; Federico Schena; Fabio Esposito
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Understanding the Physiological Requirements of the Mountain Bike Cross-Country Olympic Race Format.

Authors:  Arnaud Hays; Simon Devys; Denis Bertin; Laurie-Anne Marquet; Jeanick Brisswalter
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 4.566

3.  Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity.

Authors:  Andrea Riboli; Susanna Rampichini; Emiliano Cè; Eloisa Limonta; Marta Borrelli; Giuseppe Coratella; Fabio Esposito
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 3.078

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.