Cargando…

Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the Matrix C5x stepmill’s preprogrammed submaximal test is able to accurately predict maximal oxygen uptake. Sixteen participants completed a maximal treadmill test and a preprogrammed submaximal test on a Matrix C5x stepmill. Oxygen uptake was m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Schaumburg, Lauren, Laurson, Kelly R., Thomas, David Q., Lagally, Kristen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sciendo 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9465752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36157966
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0055
_version_ 1784787868629073920
author von Schaumburg, Lauren
Laurson, Kelly R.
Thomas, David Q.
Lagally, Kristen M.
author_facet von Schaumburg, Lauren
Laurson, Kelly R.
Thomas, David Q.
Lagally, Kristen M.
author_sort von Schaumburg, Lauren
collection PubMed
description The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the Matrix C5x stepmill’s preprogrammed submaximal test is able to accurately predict maximal oxygen uptake. Sixteen participants completed a maximal treadmill test and a preprogrammed submaximal test on a Matrix C5x stepmill. Oxygen uptake was measured using a Cosmed K5 during both tests. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)) was calculated from submaximal data using a multi-stage calculation and compared against measured VO(2max) from the maximal test and estimated VO(2max) from the submaximal stepmill test. METs were also measured during the submaximal test and compared to the METs estimated by the stepmill and METs calculated using submaximal stepping equations. Measured VO(2max) (39.18 α 6.6 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than estimated VO(2max) (28.06 α 3.2 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) and calculated VO(2max) (35.58 α 8.0 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)). Measured METs were significantly (p = 0.04) higher than estimated METs in all stages, and higher than calculated METs in stage 1 of the submaximal test. The C5x did not provide accurate estimations of METs or maximal oxygen uptake. Calculating maximal oxygen uptake from submaximal stepmill data may provide an alternative, although development of a new equation may be warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9465752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Sciendo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94657522022-09-23 Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill von Schaumburg, Lauren Laurson, Kelly R. Thomas, David Q. Lagally, Kristen M. J Hum Kinet Section II - Exercise Physiology & Sports Medicine The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the Matrix C5x stepmill’s preprogrammed submaximal test is able to accurately predict maximal oxygen uptake. Sixteen participants completed a maximal treadmill test and a preprogrammed submaximal test on a Matrix C5x stepmill. Oxygen uptake was measured using a Cosmed K5 during both tests. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)) was calculated from submaximal data using a multi-stage calculation and compared against measured VO(2max) from the maximal test and estimated VO(2max) from the submaximal stepmill test. METs were also measured during the submaximal test and compared to the METs estimated by the stepmill and METs calculated using submaximal stepping equations. Measured VO(2max) (39.18 α 6.6 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than estimated VO(2max) (28.06 α 3.2 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) and calculated VO(2max) (35.58 α 8.0 ml(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)). Measured METs were significantly (p = 0.04) higher than estimated METs in all stages, and higher than calculated METs in stage 1 of the submaximal test. The C5x did not provide accurate estimations of METs or maximal oxygen uptake. Calculating maximal oxygen uptake from submaximal stepmill data may provide an alternative, although development of a new equation may be warranted. Sciendo 2022-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9465752/ /pubmed/36157966 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0055 Text en © 2022 Lauren von Schaumburg, Kelly R. Laurson, David Q. Thomas, Kristen M. Lagally, published by Sciendo https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Section II - Exercise Physiology & Sports Medicine
von Schaumburg, Lauren
Laurson, Kelly R.
Thomas, David Q.
Lagally, Kristen M.
Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title_full Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title_fullStr Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title_full_unstemmed Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title_short Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill
title_sort submaximal testing to estimate aerobic capacity using a matrix c5x stepmill
topic Section II - Exercise Physiology & Sports Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9465752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36157966
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0055
work_keys_str_mv AT vonschaumburglauren submaximaltestingtoestimateaerobiccapacityusingamatrixc5xstepmill
AT laursonkellyr submaximaltestingtoestimateaerobiccapacityusingamatrixc5xstepmill
AT thomasdavidq submaximaltestingtoestimateaerobiccapacityusingamatrixc5xstepmill
AT lagallykristenm submaximaltestingtoestimateaerobiccapacityusingamatrixc5xstepmill