Refine
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Postprint (2)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16)
Keywords
- Athletes (2)
- Calorimetry (2)
- Energy requirement (2)
- Fat-free mass (2)
- Nutritional counseling (2)
- cardiopulmonary exercise testing (2)
- variability (2)
- Maximal oxygen uptake (1)
- Peak fat oxidation (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Running (1)
- Treadmill ergometry (1)
- VO2mdx (1)
- Variability (1)
- athletes (1)
- bias (1)
- consecutive tests (1)
- dietary records (1)
- energy intake (1)
- exhaustion (1)
- fatigue (1)
- lactate threshold (1)
- metabolic device (1)
- nonresponder (1)
- peak fat oxidation (1)
- performance diagnostics (1)
- reliability (1)
- responder (1)
- running (1)
- study design (1)
- treadmill ergometry (1)
- underreporting (1)
Lacking responses to endurance training (ET) have been observed for several variables. However, detailed analyses of individuals' responses are scarce. To learn more about the variability of ET adaptations, patterns of response were analyzed for each subject in a 1-year ET study. Eighteen participants [42 +/- 5 years, body mass index: 24 +/- 3 kg/m2, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max): 38 +/- 5 mL/min/kg] completed a 1-year jogging/walking program on 3 days/week, 45 min/session at 60% heart rate (HR) reserve. VO2max, resting HR (rHR), exercise HR (eHR) and individual anaerobic threshold (IAT) were determined by treadmill and cycling ergometry respectively. Intraindividual coefficients of variation were extracted from the literature to distinguish random changes from training responses. Eight participants showed improvements in all variables. In 10 participants, one or two variables did not improve (VO2max, rHR, eHR and IAT remained unchanged in four, four, three and one cases, respectively). At least one variable improved in each subject. Data indicate that ET adaptations might be detected in each individual using multiple variables of different adaptation levels and intensity domains. Nonresponse seems to occur frequently and might affect all variables. Further studies should investigate whether nonresponders improve with altered training. Furthermore, associations between patterns of nonresponse and health benefits from ET are worth considering.
Background: Exercising at intensities where fat oxidation rates are high has been shown to induce metabolic benefits in recreational and health-oriented sportsmen. The exercise intensity (Fat(peak)) eliciting peak fat oxidation rates is therefore of particular interest when aiming to prescribe exercise for the purpose of fat oxidation and related metabolic effects. Although running and walking are feasible and popular among the target population, no reliable protocols are available to assess Fat(peak) as well as its actual velocity (VPFO) during treadmill ergometry. Our purpose was therefore, to assess the reliability and day-to-day variability of VPFO and Fat(peak) during treadmill ergometry running. Conclusion: In summary, relative and absolute reliability indicators for V-PFO and Fat(peak) were found to be excellent. The observed LoA may now serve as a basis for future training prescriptions, although fat oxidation rates at prolonged exercise bouts at this intensity still need to be investigated.
Background: Athletes may differ in their resting metabolic rate (RMR) from the general population. However, to estimate the RMR in athletes, prediction equations that have not been validated in athletes are often used. The purpose of this study was therefore to verify the applicability of commonly used RMR predictions for use in athletes. Methods: The RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry in 17 highly trained rowers and canoeists of the German national teams (BMI 24 ± 2 kg/m2, fat-free mass 69 ± 15 kg). In addition, the RMR was predicted using Cunningham (CUN) and Harris-Benedict (HB) equations. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was calculated to test for differences between predicted and measured RMR (α = 0.05). The root mean square percentage error (RMSPE) was calculated and the Bland-Altman procedure was used to quantify the bias for each prediction. Results: Prediction equations significantly underestimated the RMR in males (p < 0.001). The RMSPE was calculated to be 18.4% (CUN) and 20.9% (HB) in the entire group. The bias was 133 kcal/24 h for CUN and 202 kcal/24 h for HB. Conclusions: Predictions significantly underestimate the RMR in male heavyweight endurance athletes but not in females. In athletes with a high fat-free mass, prediction equations might therefore not be applicable to estimate energy requirements. Instead, measurement of the resting energy expenditure or specific prediction equations might be needed for the individual heavyweight athlete.
Background:
Exercising at intensities where fat oxidation rates are high has been shown to induce metabolic benefits in recreational and health-oriented sportsmen. The exercise intensity (Fat peak ) eliciting peak fat oxidation rates is therefore of particular interest when aiming to prescribe exercise for the purpose of fat oxidation and related metabolic effects. Although running and walking are feasible and popular among the target population, no reliable protocols are available to assess Fat peak as well as its actual velocity (V PFO ) during treadmill ergometry. Our purpose was therefore, to assess the reliability and day-to-day variability of V PFO and Fat peak during treadmill ergometry running.
Methods:
Sixteen recreational athletes (f = 7, m = 9; 25 ± 3 y; 1.76 ± 0.09 m; 68.3 ± 13.7 kg; 23.1 ± 2.9 kg/m 2 ) performed 2 different running protocols on 3 different days with standardized nutrition the day before testing. At day 1, peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ) and the velocities at the aerobic threshold (V LT ) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) of 1.00 (V RER ) were assessed. At days 2 and 3, subjects ran an identical submaximal incremental test (Fat-peak test) composed of a 10 min warm-up (70 % V LT ) followed by 5 stages of 6 min with equal increments (stage 1 = V LT , stage 5 = V RER ). Breath-by-breath gas exchange data was measured continuously and used to determine fat oxidation rates. A third order polynomial function was used to identify V PFO and subsequently Fat peak . The reproducibility and variability of variables was verified with an int raclass correlation coef ficient (ICC), Pearson ’ s correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation (CV) an d the mean differences (bias) ± 95 % limits of agreement (LoA).
Results:
ICC, Pearson ’ s correlation and CV for V PFO and Fat peak were 0.98, 0.97, 5.0 %; and 0.90, 0.81, 7.0 %, respectively. Bias ± 95 % LoA was − 0.3 ± 0.9 km/h for V PFO and − 2±8%ofVO 2peak for Fat peak.
Conclusion:
In summary, relative and absolute reliability indicators for V PFO and Fat peak were found to be excellent. The observed LoA may now serve as a basis for future training prescriptions, although fat oxidation rates at prolonged exercise bouts at this intensity still need to be investigated.
On utilise de plus en plus les tests de verification pour confirmer l'atteinte du consommation d'oxygene maximale (VO(2 max)). Toutefois, le moment et les methodes d'evaluation varient d'un groupe de travail a l'autre. Les objectifs de cette etude sont de constater si on peut administrer un test de verification apres un test d'effort progressif ou s'il est preferable de le faire une autre journee et si on peut determiner le VO(2 max) tout de meme lors de la premiere seance chez des sujets ne repondant pas au critere de verification. Quarante sujets (age, 24 +/- 4 ans; VO(2 max), 50 +/- 7 mL center dot min(-1)center dot kg(-1)) participent a un test d'effort progressif sur tapis roulant et, 10 min plus tard, a un test de verification (VerifDay1) a 110 % de la velocite maximale (v(max)). Le critere de verification est un VO(2) de pointe au VerifDay1 < 5,5 % a la valeur retenue au test d'effort progressif. Les sujets ne repondant pas au critere de verification passent un autre test de verification, mais a 115 % du VerifDay1', et ce, 10 min plus tard pour confirmer le VO(2) de pointe du VerifDay1 en tant que VO(2 max). Tous les autres sujets repassent le VerifDay1 a un jour different (VerifDay2). Six sujets sur quarante ne repondent pas au critere de verification. Chez quatre d'entre eux, on confirme l'atteinte du VO(2 max) au VerifDay1'. Le VO(2) de pointe au VerifDay1 est equivalent a celui du VerifDay2 (3722 +/- 991 mL center dot min(-1) comparativement a 3752 +/- 995 mL center dot min(-1), p = 0,56), mais le temps jusqu'a l'epuisement est significativement plus long au VerifDay2 (2:06 +/- 0:22 min:s comparativement a 2:42 +/- 0:38 min:s, p < 0,001, n = 34). Le VO(2) de pointe obtenu au test de verification ne semble pas conditionne par un test d'effort progressif maximal prealable. On peut donc realiser le test d'effort progressif et le test de verification lors de la meme seance d'evaluation. Chez presque tous les individus ne repondant pas au critere de verification, on peut determiner le VO(2 max) au moyen d'un autre test de verification plus intense.
Dietary records are often biased, especially those of overweight individuals. The purpose of the study was to investigate underreporting among persons of normal weight with a very high energy intake (El).
The total energy expenditure (TEE) of 16 elite athletes (BMI 24 +/- 2 kg/m(2)) and 17 controls (BMI 23 3 kg/m2) was measured using the doubly-labeled water technique (DLW, 14d). El was estimated using 2 x 3-day dietary records. Underreporters were identified by BLACK'S cut-off (El:TEE < 0.76). 44% of athletes (El: 3584 824 kcal/d; TEE: 4621 1460 kcal/d) and 29% of controls (El: 2552 680 kcal/d; TEE: 3151 822 kcal/d) were identified as underreporters. TEE explains 52% of underreporting. In summary, a high energy intake seems to strongly predict underreporting. Prevalence and magnitude of underreporting increase with increasing energy intake.