We have located links that may give you full text access.
Exercise Thresholds on Trial: Are They Really Equivalent?
PURPOSE: The interchangeable use of whole-body exercise thresholds and breakpoints (BP) in the local oxygenation response, as measured via near-infrared spectroscopy, has recently been questioned in scientific literature. Therefore, the present study aimed to longitudinally investigate the interrelationship of four commonly used exercise thresholds: critical power (CP), the respiratory compensation point (RCP), and BP in muscle (m[HHb]BP) and brain (c[O2Hb]BP) oxygenation.
METHODS: Nine male participants (21.8 ± 1.2 yr) completed 6 wk of cycling interval training. Before and after this intervention period, subjects performed a ramp incremental exercise protocol to determine RCP, m[HHb]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP and four constant work rate (WR) tests to calculate CP.
RESULTS: WR associated with CP, RCP, m[HHB]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP increased by 7.7% ± 4.2%, 13.6% ± 9.0%, 9.8% ± 5.7%, and 11.3% ± 11.1%, respectively. CP was lower (pre: 260 ± 32 W, post: 280 ± 41 W; P < 0.05) than the WR associated with RCP (pre: 281 ± 28 W, post: 318 ± 36 W) and c[O2Hb]BP (pre: 283 ± 36 W, post: 313 ± 32 W) which occurred concomitantly (P = 0.683). M[HHb]BP occurred at the highest WR and differed from all others (pre: 313 ± 23 W, post: 344 ± 32 W; P < 0.05). Training-induced WR differences (ΔWR) did not contrast between thresholds, and initial parameter differences were not affected by the intervention (P = 0.253). Thresholds were partly correlated before (R = 0.67-0.85, P < 0.05) and after (R = 0.83-0.96, P < 0.05) training, but ΔWR values were not associated (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study strongly question true equivalence of CP, RCP, m[HHb]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP during ramp incremental exercise. Therefore, these exercise thresholds should not be used interchangeably.
METHODS: Nine male participants (21.8 ± 1.2 yr) completed 6 wk of cycling interval training. Before and after this intervention period, subjects performed a ramp incremental exercise protocol to determine RCP, m[HHb]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP and four constant work rate (WR) tests to calculate CP.
RESULTS: WR associated with CP, RCP, m[HHB]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP increased by 7.7% ± 4.2%, 13.6% ± 9.0%, 9.8% ± 5.7%, and 11.3% ± 11.1%, respectively. CP was lower (pre: 260 ± 32 W, post: 280 ± 41 W; P < 0.05) than the WR associated with RCP (pre: 281 ± 28 W, post: 318 ± 36 W) and c[O2Hb]BP (pre: 283 ± 36 W, post: 313 ± 32 W) which occurred concomitantly (P = 0.683). M[HHb]BP occurred at the highest WR and differed from all others (pre: 313 ± 23 W, post: 344 ± 32 W; P < 0.05). Training-induced WR differences (ΔWR) did not contrast between thresholds, and initial parameter differences were not affected by the intervention (P = 0.253). Thresholds were partly correlated before (R = 0.67-0.85, P < 0.05) and after (R = 0.83-0.96, P < 0.05) training, but ΔWR values were not associated (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study strongly question true equivalence of CP, RCP, m[HHb]BP, and c[O2Hb]BP during ramp incremental exercise. Therefore, these exercise thresholds should not be used interchangeably.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app