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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |