Cited by 153

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Applicability of ??VO2max criteria: discontinuous versus continuous protocols

DUNCAN, GLEN E., HOWLEY, EDWARD T., JOHNSON, BRADLEY N.·1997·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

This study compared the classic discontinuous Taylor et al. (1955) protocol to a continuous version of the same protocol to evaluate maximal physiological responses, and the quantitative values and incidence of achievement of the various maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) criteria in 10 males (24.1 +/- 2.5 yr). Criteria were a plateau in VO2 (change or = 1.15, and lactate > 8 mmol.l-1. Values for VO2max (56.8 +/- 4.7 vs 55.8 +/- 4.2 ml.kg-1.min-1), ventilation (150.7 +/- 16 vs 149.5 +/- 17.5 l.min-1 BTPS), and HR (186.3 +/- 7.7 beats.min-1 vs 191.7 +/- 6.7 beats.min-1) were similar (P < 0.05) between the discontinuous protocol (DT) and the continuous protocol (CT), respectively. Values for RER (1.28 +/- 0.05 vs 1.22 +/- 0.05) and lactate (14.3 +/- 2.7 vs 11.9 +/- 2.7 mmol.l-1) were greater (P < 0.05) on the DT than the CT. Criteria achievement were the following: 40% (CT) and 10% (DT) for HR; 50% (CT) and 60% (DT) for a VO2 plateau; and, 90% (CT) and 100% (DT) for RER and lactate. It is concluded that a VO2 plateau is not a prerequisite for defining VO2max and is of limited use as the primary objective criterion for evaluating the quality of a graded exercise test. Therefore, the achievement of secondary objective criteria, specifically RER and lactate in combination, increases the likelihood that the highest VO2 value achieved is VO2max.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005768-199702000-00017

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Cumming, 1972, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 4, 18
  2. Froelicher, 1974, J Appl Physiol, 36, 720, 10.1152/jappl.1974.36.6.720 · DOI
  3. Glassford, 1965, J Appl Physiol, 20, 509, 10.1152/jappl.1965.20.3.509 · DOI
  4. Howley, 1995, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 27, 1292, 10.1249/00005768-199509000-00009 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Issekutz, 1962, J Appl Physiol, 17, 47, 10.1152/jappl.1962.17.1.47 · DOI
  6. Issekutz, 1961, J Appl Physiol, 16, 606, 10.1152/jappl.1961.16.4.606 · DOI
  7. Kasch, 1976, J Appl Physiol, 40, 982, 10.1152/jappl.1976.40.6.982 · DOI
  8. Maksud, 1971, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 3, 63
  9. Maritz, 1961, Ergonomics, 4, 97, 10.1080/00140136108930512 · DOI
  10. McArdle, 1973, Sci Sports Exerc, 5, 156
  11. McConnell, 1988, Sports Med, 5, 57, 10.2165/00007256-198805010-00005 · DOI
  12. Noakes, 1988, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 20, 319, 10.1249/00005768-198808000-00001 · DOI
  13. Pollock, 1980, Comp Ther, 6, 12
  14. Scholander, 1947, J Biol Chem, 167, 235, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)35161-X · DOI
  15. Shephard, 1984, Sports Med, 1, 99, 10.2165/00007256-198401020-00002 · DOI
  16. Taylor, 1955, J Appl Physiol, 8, 73, 10.1152/jappl.1955.8.1.73 · DOI
  17. Taylor, 1963, Pediatrics, 32, 703, 10.1542/peds.32.4.703 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
DUNCAN, G. E., HOWLEY, E. T., & JOHNSON, B. N.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
1997-02
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
273-278
ISSN
0195-9131
Cited by
153
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review