4.4 Article

Development of peak oxygen uptake from 11-16 years determined using both treadmill and cycle ergometry

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 3, Pages 801-812

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-019-04071-3

Keywords

Aerobic fitness; Children; Health-related cut-points; Ergometry; Fat-free mass; Multilevel modelling

Funding

  1. Community Fund
  2. Darlington Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposesTo investigate the development of peak oxygen uptake (VO2) assessed on both a treadmill and a cycle ergometer in relation with sex and concurrent changes in age, body mass, fat-free mass (FFM), and maturity status and to evaluate currently proposed clinical red flags' or health-related cut-points for peak VO2.MethodsMultiplicative multilevel modelling, which enables the effects of variables to be partitioned concurrently within an allometric framework, was used to analyze the peak VO2s of 138 (72 boys) students initially aged 11-14years and tested on three annual occasions. Models were founded on 640 (340 from boys) determinations of peak VO2, supported by anthropometric measures and maturity status.ResultsMean peak VO2s were 11-14% higher on a treadmill. The data did not meet the statistical assumptions underpinning ratio scaling of peak VO2 with body mass. With body mass appropriately controlled for boys' peak VO2s were higher than girls' values and the difference increased with age. The development of peak VO2 was sex-specific, but within sex models were similar on both ergometers with FFM the dominant anthropometric factor.ConclusionsData should not be pooled for analysis but data from either ergometer can be used independently to interpret the development of peak VO2 in youth. On both ergometers and in both sexes, FFM is the most powerful morphological influence on the development of peak VO2. Clinical red flags' or health-related cut-points proposed without consideration of exercise mode and founded on peak VO2 in ratio with body mass are fallacious.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available