Assessing Agreement Between Proxy And Laboratory Estimates For The Determination Of Bioenergetics

Introduction
Proxies demonstrate accuracy in predicting laboratory x 2ma O V , only when simulation of mechanical motion in both
is achieved [1]. Nevertheless, previously conducted studies validated the predictive capacity of field tests against
treadmill protocols with a different motion of movement [2]. The aim of the present study was to investigate the
efficiency of selected field tests [i.e. the 15m Square Shuttle Test (SST) and the 20m Multistage Shuttle Run Test
(MST)] in predicting x 2ma O V derived from treadmill protocols, which utilize either the same [i.e. horizontal running
laboratory protocol (TTR)] or a different motion of movement [i.e. inclined walking (TTW)].

Methods
In a repeated-measures randomized block design, 25 healthy male and female individuals performed four x 2ma O V
assessments using: a) the SST, b) the MST, c) the TTR, and d) the TTW. In addition, maximum heart rate (HRmax) was
recorded via telemetry, and peak blood lactate concentration (BLP) was obtained three minutes following each
assessment.

Results
Statistical analyses revealed that TTR and SST reported the higher agreement from all comparisons. Specifically for
x 2ma O V , ANOVA revealed no mean differences (p>0.05), and a correlation coefficient of r=0.91 (p<0.001). In
addition, ‚’95 percent limits of agreement’ (LIMAG) revealed a range of error equal to -0.72±3.25, with a percent
coefficient of variation (CV%) of 3.25%. Results from all other comparisons appear in Tables 1 and 2.

Discussion/Conclusions
The higher agreement was achieved between SST (continuous field-running) and TTR (continuous treadmill-running)
possibly due to the same modes utilized during the tests and thus, resulting in an enhanced predictive efficacy of the
field test. Nevertheless, this was not the case for MST (intermittent field-running incorporating frequent stops and
turns). Furthermore, the different exercise modes utilized during both field tests and TTR may have accounted for the
discrepancy in the results obtained.

References
[1]. Kemi O.J., et al. (2003). J Sport Med Phys Fit, Jun;43(2):139-44.
[2]. Léger L., Gadoury C. (1989). Can J Sport Sci, 14(1), 21-26.

NOTA: O texto com a iconografia está no anexo.

Arquivo