Marcos Martin-Rincon1,2, Juan José González-Henríquez2,3, José Losa-Reyna1,2, Ismael Perez-Suarez1,2, Jesús Gustavo Ponce-González1, Jaime de La Calle-Herrero1, Mario Perez-Valera1,2, Alberto Pérez-López4, David Curtelin2, Evgenia D Cherouveim5, David Morales-Alamo1,2, Jose A L Calbet1,2,6,7. 1. Department of Physical Education, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. 2. Research Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences (IUIBS), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. 3. Department of Mathematics, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 6. School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 7. Department of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists on how to average data to optimize V ˙ O2max assessment. Although the V ˙ O2max value is reduced with larger averaging blocks, no mathematical procedure is available to account for the effect of the length of the averaging block on V ˙ O2max. AIMS: To determine the effect that the number of breaths or seconds included in the averaging block has on the V ˙ O2max value and its reproducibility and to develop correction equations to standardize V ˙ O2max values obtained with different averaging strategies. METHODS: Eighty-four subjects performed duplicate incremental tests to exhaustion (IE) in the cycle ergometer and/or treadmill using two metabolic carts (Vyntus and Vmax N29). Rolling breath averages and fixed time averages were calculated from breath-by-breath data from 6 to 60 breaths or seconds. RESULTS: V ˙ O2max decayed from 6 to 60 breath averages by 10% in low fit ( V ˙ O2max < 40 mL kg-1 min-1 ) and 6.7% in trained subjects. The V ˙ O2max averaged from a similar number of breaths or seconds was highly concordant (CCC > 0.97). There was a linear-log relationship between the number of breaths or seconds in the averaging block and V ˙ O2max (R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001), and specific equations were developed to standardize V ˙ O2max values to a fixed number of breaths or seconds. Reproducibility was higher in trained than low-fit subjects and not influenced by the averaging strategy, exercise mode, maximal respiratory rate, or IE protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The V ˙ O2max decreases following a linear-log function with the number of breaths or seconds included in the averaging block and can be corrected with specific equations as those developed here.
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists on how to average data to optimize V ˙ O2max assessment. Although the V ˙ O2max value is reduced with larger averaging blocks, no mathematical procedure is available to account for the effect of the length of the averaging block on V ˙ O2max. AIMS: To determine the effect that the number of breaths or seconds included in the averaging block has on the V ˙ O2max value and its reproducibility and to develop correction equations to standardize V ˙ O2max values obtained with different averaging strategies. METHODS: Eighty-four subjects performed duplicate incremental tests to exhaustion (IE) in the cycle ergometer and/or treadmill using two metabolic carts (Vyntus and Vmax N29). Rolling breath averages and fixed time averages were calculated from breath-by-breath data from 6 to 60 breaths or seconds. RESULTS: V ˙ O2max decayed from 6 to 60 breath averages by 10% in low fit ( V ˙ O2max < 40 mL kg-1 min-1 ) and 6.7% in trained subjects. The V ˙ O2max averaged from a similar number of breaths or seconds was highly concordant (CCC > 0.97). There was a linear-log relationship between the number of breaths or seconds in the averaging block and V ˙ O2max (R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001), and specific equations were developed to standardize V ˙ O2max values to a fixed number of breaths or seconds. Reproducibility was higher in trained than low-fit subjects and not influenced by the averaging strategy, exercise mode, maximal respiratory rate, or IE protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The V ˙ O2max decreases following a linear-log function with the number of breaths or seconds included in the averaging block and can be corrected with specific equations as those developed here.
Authors: Danilo Iannetta; Daniel A Keir; Federico Y Fontana; Erin Calaine Inglis; Anmol T Mattu; Donald H Paterson; Silvia Pogliaghi; Juan M Murias Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Felipe Mattioni Maturana; Philipp Schellhorn; Gunnar Erz; Christof Burgstahler; Manuel Widmann; Barbara Munz; Rogerio N Soares; Juan M Murias; Ansgar Thiel; Andreas M Nieß Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Pablo B Pedrianes-Martin; Marcos Martin-Rincon; David Morales-Alamo; Ismael Perez-Suarez; Mario Perez-Valera; Victor Galvan-Alvarez; David Curtelin; Pedro de Pablos-Velasco; Jose A L Calbet Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Marcos Martin-Rincon; Mario Perez-Valera; David Morales-Alamo; Ismael Perez-Suarez; Cecilia Dorado; Juan J Gonzalez-Henriquez; Julian W Juan-Habib; Cristian Quintana-Garcia; Victor Galvan-Alvarez; Pablo B Pedrianes-Martin; Carmen Acosta; David Curtelin; Jose A L Calbet; Pedro de Pablos-Velasco Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.241