Matsuo T, So R, Murai F. Estimation methods to detect changes in cardiorespiratory fitness due to exercise training and subsequent detraining.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2023;
123:877-889. [PMID:
36550384 DOI:
10.1007/s00421-022-05113-z]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE
To determine whether estimated maximal oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]) can detect cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) changes by behavioral modifications. This study compared changes in measured [Formula: see text]O2max (m[Formula: see text]O2max) through exercise intervention with e[Formula: see text]O2max using a multiple regression model (MRM) and linear extrapolation method (LEM).
METHODS
A cross-sectional analysis involving 173 adults was conducted to establish an MRM by including age, sex, body mass index, questionnaire score, heart rate (HR) from step test, and m[Formula: see text]O2max. Subsequently, 15 men participated in an intervention experiment comprising an 8-week, high-intensity interval training, followed by 8-week detraining, and completed anthropometric measurements, questionnaires, step tests, and m[Formula: see text]O2max tests. m[Formula: see text]O2max changes throughout the intervention were compared to e[Formula: see text]O2max changes calculated using the MRM and LEM. The LEM used the HR during the step test with constant values (predetermined [Formula: see text]O2), such as the Chester step test.
RESULTS
Inclusion of the step test HR in a questionnaire-based MRM improved the estimation power, although the MRM underestimated higher m[Formula: see text]O2max values. In the intervention, m[Formula: see text]O2max increased by 20.0 ± 14.1% (P < 0.01) and subsequently decreased by 9.5 ± 6.6% (P < 0.01) after exercise training and detraining, respectively. Significant method × time interactions were observed between m[Formula: see text]O2max and e[Formula: see text]O2max in the MRM but not in the LEM, i.e., an apparent systematic error (underestimation of high values) of the MRM was absent in the LEM, although the correlation between m[Formula: see text]O2max and e[Formula: see text]O2max using the LEM was moderate.
CONCLUSION
e[Formula: see text]O2max, particularly using the MRM with HR as an explanatory factor, is not an appropriate method for detecting CRF changes along with behavioral modifications.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registered number, UMIN000041031; Registered date, 2020/07/08; URL, https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000046855.
Collapse