These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Anaerobic capacity: effect of computational method.
    Author: Noordhof DA, Vink AM, de Koning JJ, Foster C.
    Journal: Int J Sports Med; 2011 Jun; 32(6):422-8. PubMed ID: 21563025.
    Abstract:
    Anaerobic capacity (AnC) can be estimated by subtracting VO (2) consumed from VO (2) demand, which can be estimated from multiple submaximal exercise bouts or by gross efficiency (GE), requiring one submaximal bout. This study compares AnC using the MAOD and GE method. The precision of estimated VO (2) demand and AnC, determined by MAOD using 3 power output - VO (2) regressions, based on VO (2) from min 8-10 (10 - Y), during min 4 without (4 - Y) and with forced y-intercept (4+Y), and from GE was evaluated by the 95% confidence interval (CI). Well-trained males (n=15) performed submaximal exercise tests to establish VO (2) demand with the MAOD and GE method. To determine AnC subjects completed a constant power output trial. The 3 MAOD procedures and GE method had no significant difference for VO (2) demand and AnC. The 4+Y MAOD procedure and GE method resulted in a smaller 95% CI of VO (2) demand and AnC than the 10 - Y ( P<0.05; P<0.01) and 4 - Y ( P<0.001; P<0.01) MAOD procedures. Therefore, the 4+Y MAOD procedure and GE method are preferred for estimating AnC, but as individual differences exist, they cannot be used interchangeably.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]