Cody J Strom1, Robert W Pettitt2, Luke M Krynski3, Nicholas A Jamnick4, Charles J Hein3, Cherie D Pettitt5. 1. Department of Kinesiology, East Carolina State University, Greenville, NC, USA. 2. Department of Health Science, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, 122 East 1700 South, Provo, UT, 84606, USA. 3. Department of Human Performance, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA. 4. Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Health Science, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, 122 East 1700 South, Provo, UT, 84606, USA. cpettitt@rmuohp.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A customized submaximal exercise test for cycle ergometry was reported as a superior estimate of maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) in comparison to the traditional YMCA ergometry test. PURPOSE: Following similar methodology, we sought to validate a customized submaximal treadmill test (CustomTM) compared with the widely used Bruce submaximal protocol. METHODS: Participants (29 women and 21 men; age = 31.37 ± 11.44 year, BMI = 24.02 ± 3.03) performed a graded exercise test (GXT) with a subsequent exhaustive, square-wave bout for the verification of "true" VO2max. In counterbalanced order, subjects then completed submaximal protocols. The CustomTM protocol consisted of two 3-min stages estimated at 35 and 70% of VO2max, where VO2max was estimated with a linear regression equation utilizing sex, BMI, age, and self-reported physical activity. RESULTS: VO2 values from the GXT and verification bout were 47.2 ± 7.7 and 47.0 ± 7.7 ml kg-1 min-1, respectively (ICC = 0.99, CV = 2.0%, TE = 0.83 ml kg-1 min-1), with the highest value used as "true" VO2max (47.7 ± 7.7 ml kg-1 min-1). Neither the Bruce (45.95 ± 6.97 ml kg-1 min-1) nor the CustomTM (47.3 ± 9.4 ml kg-1 min-1) protocol differed from "true" VO2max. The CustomTM had a "very large" measurement agreement with "true" VO2max (ICC = 0.78, CV of 9.1%, TE = 4.07 ml kg-1 min-1). Bruce had a "large" measurement agreement with "true" VO2max (ICC = 0.62, CV of 10.0%, TE = 4.51 ml kg-1 min-1). CONCLUSION: The CustomTM was superior to the Bruce protocol, because it included a stage below and above gas exchange threshold, yielded a better measurement agreement for "true" VO2max, and was more time efficient.
INTRODUCTION: A customized submaximal exercise test for cycle ergometry was reported as a superior estimate of maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) in comparison to the traditional YMCA ergometry test. PURPOSE: Following similar methodology, we sought to validate a customized submaximal treadmill test (CustomTM) compared with the widely used Bruce submaximal protocol. METHODS:Participants (29 women and 21 men; age = 31.37 ± 11.44 year, BMI = 24.02 ± 3.03) performed a graded exercise test (GXT) with a subsequent exhaustive, square-wave bout for the verification of "true" VO2max. In counterbalanced order, subjects then completed submaximal protocols. The CustomTM protocol consisted of two 3-min stages estimated at 35 and 70% of VO2max, where VO2max was estimated with a linear regression equation utilizing sex, BMI, age, and self-reported physical activity. RESULTS: VO2 values from the GXT and verification bout were 47.2 ± 7.7 and 47.0 ± 7.7 ml kg-1 min-1, respectively (ICC = 0.99, CV = 2.0%, TE = 0.83 ml kg-1 min-1), with the highest value used as "true" VO2max (47.7 ± 7.7 ml kg-1 min-1). Neither the Bruce (45.95 ± 6.97 ml kg-1 min-1) nor the CustomTM (47.3 ± 9.4 ml kg-1 min-1) protocol differed from "true" VO2max. The CustomTM had a "very large" measurement agreement with "true" VO2max (ICC = 0.78, CV of 9.1%, TE = 4.07 ml kg-1 min-1). Bruce had a "large" measurement agreement with "true" VO2max (ICC = 0.62, CV of 10.0%, TE = 4.51 ml kg-1 min-1). CONCLUSION: The CustomTM was superior to the Bruce protocol, because it included a stage below and above gas exchange threshold, yielded a better measurement agreement for "true" VO2max, and was more time efficient.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bruce protocol; Maximum oxygen uptake; Treadmill testing; VO2 slow component
Authors: Robert W Pettitt; Ida E Clark; Stacy M Ebner; Daniel T Sedgeman; Steven R Murray Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.775