Cargando…

The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance

Introduction: Traditional graded-exercise tests to volitional exhaustion (GXTs) are limited by the need to establish starting workloads, stage durations, and step increments. Short-duration time-trials (TTs) may be easier to implement and more ecologically valid in terms of real-world athletic event...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: McGawley, Kerry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5413511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515696
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00270
_version_ 1783233188997365760
author McGawley, Kerry
author_facet McGawley, Kerry
author_sort McGawley, Kerry
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Traditional graded-exercise tests to volitional exhaustion (GXTs) are limited by the need to establish starting workloads, stage durations, and step increments. Short-duration time-trials (TTs) may be easier to implement and more ecologically valid in terms of real-world athletic events. The purpose of the current study was to assess the reliability and validity of maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] max) and performance measured during a traditional GXT (STEP) and a four-minute running time-trial (RunTT). Methods: Ten recreational runners (age: 32 ± 7 years; body mass: 69 ± 10 kg) completed five STEP tests with a verification phase (VER) and five self-paced RunTTs on a treadmill. The order of the STEP/VER and RunTT trials was alternated and counter-balanced. Performance was measured as time to exhaustion (TTE) for STEP and VER and distance covered for RunTT. Results: The coefficient of variation (CV) for [Formula: see text] max was similar between STEP, VER, and RunTT (1.9 ± 1.0, 2.2 ± 1.1, and 1.8 ± 0.8%, respectively), but varied for performance between the three types of test (4.5 ± 1.9, 9.7 ± 3.5, and 1.8 ± 0.7% for STEP, VER, and RunTT, respectively). Bland-Altman limits of agreement (bias ± 95%) showed [Formula: see text] max to be 1.6 ± 3.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) higher for STEP vs. RunTT. Peak HR was also significantly higher during STEP compared with RunTT (P = 0.019). Conclusion: A four-minute running time-trial appears to provide more reliable performance data in comparison to an incremental test to exhaustion, but may underestimate [Formula: see text] max.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5413511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54135112017-05-17 The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance McGawley, Kerry Front Physiol Physiology Introduction: Traditional graded-exercise tests to volitional exhaustion (GXTs) are limited by the need to establish starting workloads, stage durations, and step increments. Short-duration time-trials (TTs) may be easier to implement and more ecologically valid in terms of real-world athletic events. The purpose of the current study was to assess the reliability and validity of maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] max) and performance measured during a traditional GXT (STEP) and a four-minute running time-trial (RunTT). Methods: Ten recreational runners (age: 32 ± 7 years; body mass: 69 ± 10 kg) completed five STEP tests with a verification phase (VER) and five self-paced RunTTs on a treadmill. The order of the STEP/VER and RunTT trials was alternated and counter-balanced. Performance was measured as time to exhaustion (TTE) for STEP and VER and distance covered for RunTT. Results: The coefficient of variation (CV) for [Formula: see text] max was similar between STEP, VER, and RunTT (1.9 ± 1.0, 2.2 ± 1.1, and 1.8 ± 0.8%, respectively), but varied for performance between the three types of test (4.5 ± 1.9, 9.7 ± 3.5, and 1.8 ± 0.7% for STEP, VER, and RunTT, respectively). Bland-Altman limits of agreement (bias ± 95%) showed [Formula: see text] max to be 1.6 ± 3.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) higher for STEP vs. RunTT. Peak HR was also significantly higher during STEP compared with RunTT (P = 0.019). Conclusion: A four-minute running time-trial appears to provide more reliable performance data in comparison to an incremental test to exhaustion, but may underestimate [Formula: see text] max. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5413511/ /pubmed/28515696 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00270 Text en Copyright © 2017 McGawley. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
McGawley, Kerry
The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title_full The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title_fullStr The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title_full_unstemmed The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title_short The Reliability and Validity of a Four-Minute Running Time-Trial in Assessing [Formula: see text] max and Performance
title_sort reliability and validity of a four-minute running time-trial in assessing [formula: see text] max and performance
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5413511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515696
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00270
work_keys_str_mv AT mcgawleykerry thereliabilityandvalidityofafourminuterunningtimetrialinassessingformulaseetextmaxandperformance
AT mcgawleykerry reliabilityandvalidityofafourminuterunningtimetrialinassessingformulaseetextmaxandperformance