Seth F McCarthy1, Jarryd M P Leung1, Tom J Hazell2. 1. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada. thazell@wlu.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current methods (plateau/secondary criteria) to determine maximal oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2max) are inconsistently achieved leading some to suggest the use of a verification phase (VP) to confirm [Formula: see text]O2max. PURPOSE: To provide further evidence for the inclusion of a VP to confirm [Formula: see text]O2max in different fitness levels. METHODS: Forty-nine participants (22 females; 21.9 ± 2.6 years, 24.3 ± 2.8 kg m-2, 45.27 ± 7.68 mL kg-1 min-1) had their [Formula: see text]O2 and heart rate measured during three graded exercise tests (GXT) on separate days each followed by a VP of differing intensity (85%, 95%, 105% final workload). Participants were divided into groups using norms adapted from American College of Sports Medicine [Formula: see text]O2max guidelines (30.47-61.47 mL kg-1 min-1). [Formula: see text]O2max was confirmed if the [Formula: see text]O2peak on the VP or an additional GXT was within ± 2 × typical error of the [Formula: see text]O2peak attained on the first GXT. There was no effect of test number so the third GXT was not included in comparison with VP. RESULTS: The [Formula: see text]O2peak from the first GXT was not different than either value attained following the VP at 95 or 105% workload or a second GXT (p > 0.999). The 85% VP [Formula: see text]O2peak was lower than the first GXT [Formula: see text]O2peak (p = 0.002). The VP confirmed the GXT [Formula: see text]O2peak on 73% of VP (no differences among fitness levels). Submaximal VP (85 and 95%) was less effective as 65% and 51% of participants achieved a higher [Formula: see text]O2peak on one of the GXT. CONCLUSION: The use of a VP at 105% or a second GXT was able to confirm the [Formula: see text]O2max value attained across a range of fitness levels.
INTRODUCTION: Current methods (plateau/secondary criteria) to determine maximal oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2max) are inconsistently achieved leading some to suggest the use of a verification phase (VP) to confirm [Formula: see text]O2max. PURPOSE: To provide further evidence for the inclusion of a VP to confirm [Formula: see text]O2max in different fitness levels. METHODS: Forty-nine participants (22 females; 21.9 ± 2.6 years, 24.3 ± 2.8 kg m-2, 45.27 ± 7.68 mL kg-1 min-1) had their [Formula: see text]O2 and heart rate measured during three graded exercise tests (GXT) on separate days each followed by a VP of differing intensity (85%, 95%, 105% final workload). Participants were divided into groups using norms adapted from American College of Sports Medicine [Formula: see text]O2max guidelines (30.47-61.47 mL kg-1 min-1). [Formula: see text]O2max was confirmed if the [Formula: see text]O2peak on the VP or an additional GXT was within ± 2 × typical error of the [Formula: see text]O2peak attained on the first GXT. There was no effect of test number so the third GXT was not included in comparison with VP. RESULTS: The [Formula: see text]O2peak from the first GXT was not different than either value attained following the VP at 95 or 105% workload or a second GXT (p > 0.999). The 85% VP [Formula: see text]O2peak was lower than the first GXT [Formula: see text]O2peak (p = 0.002). The VP confirmed the GXT [Formula: see text]O2peak on 73% of VP (no differences among fitness levels). Submaximal VP (85 and 95%) was less effective as 65% and 51% of participants achieved a higher [Formula: see text]O2peak on one of the GXT. CONCLUSION: The use of a VP at 105% or a second GXT was able to confirm the [Formula: see text]O2max value attained across a range of fitness levels.
Authors: Brendon J Gurd; Matthew D Giles; Jacob T Bonafiglia; James P Raleigh; John C Boyd; Jasmin K Ma; Jason G E Zelt; Trisha D Scribbans Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Paulo Azevedo; Dharini M. Bhammar; Tony G. Babb; T. Scott Bowen; Klaus K. Witte; Harry B. Rossiter; Julien V. Brugniaux; Ben D. Perry; Ricardo Dantas de Lucas; Tiago Turnes; Jeann L. Sabino-Carvalho; Thiago Ribeiro Lopes; Rodrigo Zacca; Ricardo J. Fernandes; Greg L. McKie; Tom J. Hazell; Lucas Helal; Anderson Donelli da Silveira; Craig Ryan McNulty; Robert Andrew Roberg; Tom E. Nightingale; Abdullah A. Alrashidi; Evgeny Mashkovskiy; Andrei Krassioukov; Pierre Clos; Davy Laroche; Benjamin Pageaux; David C. Poole; Andrew M. Jones; Gustavo Z. Schaun; Diego Santos de Souza; Tatiane de Oliveira Barreto Lopes; Mary Vagula; Li Zuo; Tingyang Zhao Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2018-07-01
Authors: Megan N Hawkins; Peter B Raven; Peter G Snell; James Stray-Gundersen; Benjamin D Levine Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Lance C Dalleck; Todd A Astorino; Rachel M Erickson; Caitlin M McCarthy; Alyssa A Beadell; Brigette H Botten Journal: Res Sports Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.674
Authors: Ian R Villanueva; John C Campbell; Serena M Medina; Theresa M Jorgensen; Shannon L Wilson; Siddhartha S Angadi; Glenn A Gaesser; Jared M Dickinson Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2021-09