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: Interrater reliability of a customized submaximal cycle ergometer test.
    Author: Kantor MA, Fretti S, Gubler C, Kramer M, Pettitt RW.
    Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol; 2023 Jan; 123(1):43-48. PubMed ID: 36136171.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Graded exercise testing (GXTs) is used to determine maximum oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]). Recently, customized submaximal exercise testing (CSET) completed on both treadmill and cycle ergometry were validated. METHODS: Interrater reliability of the CSET for cycle ergometry was examined. Thirteen participants (age 31 ± 10.2 y, weight 77.9 ± 10.5 kg, height 176.2 ± 9.9 cm, body mass index 25.1 ± 2.9) completed the 2-stage × 3-min CSET protocol performed by two separate testers. True [Formula: see text] was determined using the highest value derived by a GXT and verification bout. Skeletal muscle oxygen saturation ([Formula: see text]), measured using near-infrared spectrometry on the medial gastrocnemius muscle, and [Formula: see text] were monitored during each CSET; whereby, [Formula: see text] kinetics were modeled breath-by-breath data for each 3-min stage. Measurement agreement was quantified using intraclass coefficient (ICC), typical error (TE), and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: "True" [Formula: see text] (ml·kg-1·min-1) between the GXT (41.3 ± 10.5) and verification (42.5 ± 11.5) was established (ICC = 0.98, TE: 0.98, CV 2.1%). Estimated [Formula: see text] by tester 1 (42.5 ± 9.8) and tester 2 (42.7 ± 8.9) did not differ from "true" [Formula: see text] (F2,36 = 0.02, p = 0.98, ηp2 = 0.00). The second stage evoked a [Formula: see text] slow component of 194 ± 124 ml·min-1 that corresponded with a time-dependent decline of [Formula: see text]. The mean [Formula: see text] from the two CSET testers were highly correlated (ICC = 0.91, TE: 4.1%, CV = 8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CSET is a reliable and valid procedure and [Formula: see text] is a useful tool for corroborating the second stage is in the heavy-intensity domain.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]