Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
ORIGINAL ARTICLES EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 May;56(5):510-9
Are heart rate deflection point and peak velocity determined in the Université of Montréal Track Test valid to approximate aerobic parameters measured in the laboratory?
Thiago R. LOPES 1-3, Alexandre A. DE ALMEIDA 2, 3, Antonio C. DA SILVA 2, 3, Bruno M. SILVA 2, 3
1 São Paulo Association for Medicine Development, São Paulo, Brazil; 2 Olympic Center of Training and Research, São Paulo, Brazil; 3 Department of Physiology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the respiratory compensation point (RCP) and maximal aerobic velocity (vVO2max) measured in the laboratory, respectively, with the heart rate deflection point (HRDP) and the peak velocity (PV) determined in the Université of Montréal Track Test (UMTT). Beside, we investigated the relationship of these parameters with endurance performance.
METHODS: Eighteen long distance runners randomly performed (in different days) two incremental exercise tests (laboratory and UMTT). RCP and vVO2max were identified in a treadmill test. The HRDP was identified using the Dmax method, while the PV was identified as the velocity of the last complete stage (PVc) and the time-corrected velocity of the last incomplete stage (PVi). Endurance performance was the reported 10-km race time from the closest race to the test visits.
RESULTS: RCP heart rate (176±14 bpm) was not significantly different from HRDP (173±10 bpm). The agreement was reasonable [bias: 4 bpm (95% limit of agreement: -16 to 24 bpm)]. vVO2max (18.0±2.1 km.h-1) was not significantly different from PVi (17.6±2.1 km.h-1), but was significantly higher than PVc (17.3±2.0 km.h-1). The agreement between vVO2max and PVi was acceptable [0.4 km.h-1 (-1.6 to 2.4 km.h-1)]. Endurance performance correlations (2212±277 s) with HRDP velocity (r=-0.75) and PVi (r=-0.83) tended to be lower than with RCP velocity (r=-0.91) and vVO2max (r=-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to estimate with reasonable accuracy the vVO2max using the UMTT. However, care must be taken to use the HRDP identified through the UMTT to prescribe training intensities.