Cargando…

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

PURPOSE: Continuous incremental protocols (CP) may misestimate the maximum aerobic velocity (V(max)) due to increases in running speed faster than cardiorespiratory/metabolic adjustments. A higher aerobic capacity may mitigate this issue due to faster pulmonary oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Riboli, Andrea, Rampichini, Susanna, Cè, Emiliano, Limonta, Eloisa, Borrelli, Marta, Coratella, Giuseppe, Esposito, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8505335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34319445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04763-9
_version_ 1784581514233643008
author Riboli, Andrea
Rampichini, Susanna
Cè, Emiliano
Limonta, Eloisa
Borrelli, Marta
Coratella, Giuseppe
Esposito, Fabio
author_facet Riboli, Andrea
Rampichini, Susanna
Cè, Emiliano
Limonta, Eloisa
Borrelli, Marta
Coratella, Giuseppe
Esposito, Fabio
author_sort Riboli, Andrea
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Continuous incremental protocols (CP) may misestimate the maximum aerobic velocity (V(max)) due to increases in running speed faster than cardiorespiratory/metabolic adjustments. A higher aerobic capacity may mitigate this issue due to faster pulmonary oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2)) kinetics. Therefore, this study aimed to compare three different protocols to assess V(max) in athletes with higher or lower training status. METHODS: Sixteen well-trained runners were classified according to higher (HI) or lower (LO) [Formula: see text] O(2max) [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics was calculated across four 5-min running bouts at 10 km·h(−1). Two CPs [1 km·h(−1) per min (CP1) and 1 km·h(−1) every 2-min (CP2)] were performed to determine V(max) [Formula: see text] O(2max), lactate-threshold and submaximal [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity relationship. Results were compared to the discontinuous incremental protocol (DP). RESULTS: V(max), [Formula: see text] O(2max), [Formula: see text] CO(2) and VE were higher [(P < 0.05,(ES:0.22/2.59)] in HI than in LO. [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics was faster [P < 0.05,(ES:-2.74/ − 1.76)] in HI than in LO. [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity slope was lower in HI than in LO [(P < 0.05,(ES:-1.63/ − 0.18)]. V(max) and [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity slope were CP1 > CP2 = DP for HI and CP1 > CP2 > DP for LO. A lower [P < 0.05,(ES:0.53/0.75)] V(max)-difference for both CP1 and CP2 vs DP was found in HI than in LO. V(max)-differences in CP1 vs DP showed a large inverse correlation with V(max), [Formula: see text] O(2max) and lactate-threshold and a very large correlation with [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Higher aerobic training status witnessed by faster [Formula: see text] O(2) kinetics led to lower between-protocol V(max) differences, particularly between CP2 vs DP. Faster kinetics may minimize the mismatch issues between metabolic and mechanical power that may occur in CP. This should be considered for exercise prescription at different percentages of V(max).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8505335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85053352021-10-19 Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity Riboli, Andrea Rampichini, Susanna Cè, Emiliano Limonta, Eloisa Borrelli, Marta Coratella, Giuseppe Esposito, Fabio Eur J Appl Physiol Original Article PURPOSE: Continuous incremental protocols (CP) may misestimate the maximum aerobic velocity (V(max)) due to increases in running speed faster than cardiorespiratory/metabolic adjustments. A higher aerobic capacity may mitigate this issue due to faster pulmonary oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2)) kinetics. Therefore, this study aimed to compare three different protocols to assess V(max) in athletes with higher or lower training status. METHODS: Sixteen well-trained runners were classified according to higher (HI) or lower (LO) [Formula: see text] O(2max) [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics was calculated across four 5-min running bouts at 10 km·h(−1). Two CPs [1 km·h(−1) per min (CP1) and 1 km·h(−1) every 2-min (CP2)] were performed to determine V(max) [Formula: see text] O(2max), lactate-threshold and submaximal [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity relationship. Results were compared to the discontinuous incremental protocol (DP). RESULTS: V(max), [Formula: see text] O(2max), [Formula: see text] CO(2) and VE were higher [(P < 0.05,(ES:0.22/2.59)] in HI than in LO. [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics was faster [P < 0.05,(ES:-2.74/ − 1.76)] in HI than in LO. [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity slope was lower in HI than in LO [(P < 0.05,(ES:-1.63/ − 0.18)]. V(max) and [Formula: see text] O(2)/velocity slope were CP1 > CP2 = DP for HI and CP1 > CP2 > DP for LO. A lower [P < 0.05,(ES:0.53/0.75)] V(max)-difference for both CP1 and CP2 vs DP was found in HI than in LO. V(max)-differences in CP1 vs DP showed a large inverse correlation with V(max), [Formula: see text] O(2max) and lactate-threshold and a very large correlation with [Formula: see text] O(2)-kinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Higher aerobic training status witnessed by faster [Formula: see text] O(2) kinetics led to lower between-protocol V(max) differences, particularly between CP2 vs DP. Faster kinetics may minimize the mismatch issues between metabolic and mechanical power that may occur in CP. This should be considered for exercise prescription at different percentages of V(max). Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-28 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8505335/ /pubmed/34319445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04763-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Riboli, Andrea
Rampichini, Susanna
Cè, Emiliano
Limonta, Eloisa
Borrelli, Marta
Coratella, Giuseppe
Esposito, Fabio
Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title_full Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title_fullStr Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title_full_unstemmed Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title_short Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
title_sort training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8505335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34319445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04763-9
work_keys_str_mv AT riboliandrea trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT rampichinisusanna trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT ceemiliano trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT limontaeloisa trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT borrellimarta trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT coratellagiuseppe trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity
AT espositofabio trainingstatusaffectsbetweenprotocolsdifferencesintheassessmentofmaximalaerobicvelocity