IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of parameters derived from a three-minute all-out test with classical benchmarks for running exercise

Author

Listed:
  • Filipe A B Sousa
  • Fúlvia B Manchado-Gobatto
  • Natália A Rodrigues
  • Claudio A Gobatto

Abstract

This study aimed to compare four constructs from the three-minute all-out test (AO3)–end power (EP), the area above EP (WEP), maximum power (Pmax), and attained V˙O2peak−to those derived from the classical CP model in tethered running. Seventeen male recreational runners underwent two experiments to test for reliability and agreement of AO3 parameters with those obtained from the classical CP model (Wꞌ and CP), a graded exercise test (V˙O2max) and a 30-second all-out test (AO30s; Pmax); all performed on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT). Significance levels were set at p 0.86) but moderate for WEP (ICC = 0.69). Pmax showed no difference between AO3 and AO30s (p = 0.18; CV% = 9.5%). EP and WEP disagreed largely with their classical critical power model counterparts (p = 0.05; CV%>32.7% and p = 0.23; CV%>39.7%, respectively), showing greater error than their test-retest reliability. V˙O2peak from AO3 was not different (p = 0.13) and well related (CV% = 8.4; ICC = 0.87) to the incremental test V˙O2max. Under the studied conditions, the agreement of EP and WEP to CP and Wꞌ was not strong enough to assure their use interchangeably. Pmax and V˙O2max were closer to their criterion parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Filipe A B Sousa & Fúlvia B Manchado-Gobatto & Natália A Rodrigues & Claudio A Gobatto, 2022. "Comparison of parameters derived from a three-minute all-out test with classical benchmarks for running exercise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266012
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266012
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266012&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.