student research
Physiological measurements obtained from one mode of testing and training applied to another mode in cycling and running.
 |
Courtney Tofte catofte@stthomas.edu |
The secondary objective was to assess the validity of applying data from incremental testing to steady state exercise Sixteen experienced triathletes performed VO2 max testing on a cycle ergometer(CE) and treadmill(TM) In addition, a 30-minute time trial(TT) was performed on CE. No significant differences were observed between modes of testing for VO2 max(CE=68.4±11.1 ml/kg/min, TM=69.0±13.2 ml/kg/min), maximum heart rate(CE=177.1±6.1 bpm, TM=178.1±7.4 bpm), or AT(CE ATHR= 153.9±10.5 bpm, TM ATHR=157.0±9.5 bpm). While the mean difference in ATHR was small(3.1 bpm), a small correlation coefficient(.321) between the AT for the 2 testing modes resulted in a large total error(TE =9.9 bpm), indicating limited practical application of training zones between modes of testing.
Mean TT heart rate(TTHR) was significantly greater than mean ATHR(159.4±8.9 vs 153.9±10.5 bpm) due to significant “drift” in these 2 variables over time, while TT watts and AT watts were not significantly different(249.1±47.8 vs 240.6±71.1 watts). It is suggested that the latter may be a better method of monitoring training intensity for CE.The primary objective of this study was to determine if physiological measurements obtained from one mode of testing and training could be applied to another mode, as in cycling and running. The secondary objective was to assess the validity of applying data from incremental testing to steady state exercise Sixteen experienced triathletes performed VO2 max testing on a cycle ergometer(CE) and treadmill(TM) In addition, a 30-minute time trial(TT) was performed on CE. No significant differences were observed between modes of testing for VO2 max(CE=68.4±11.1 ml/kg/min, TM=69.0±13.2 ml/kg/min), maximum heart rate(CE=177.1±6.1 bpm, TM=178.1±7.4 bpm), or AT(CE ATHR= 153.9±10.5 bpm, TM ATHR=157.0±9.5 bpm). While the mean difference in ATHR was small(3.1 bpm), a small correlation coefficient(.321) between the AT for the 2 testing modes resulted in a large total error(TE =9.9 bpm), indicating limited practical application of training zones between modes of testing.
Mean TT heart rate(TTHR) was significantly greater than mean ATHR(159.4±8.9 vs 153.9±10.5 bpm) due to significant “drift” in these 2 variables over time, while TT watts and AT watts were not significantly different(249.1±47.8 vs 240.6±71.1 watts). It is suggested that the latter may be a better method of monitoring training intensity for CE.
Mean TT heart rate(TTHR) was significantly greater than mean ATHR(159.4±8.9 vs 153.9±10.5 bpm) due to significant “drift” in these 2 variables over time, while TT watts and AT watts were not significantly different(249.1±47.8 vs 240.6±71.1 watts). It is suggested that the latter may be a better method of monitoring training intensity for CE.The primary objective of this study was to determine if physiological measurements obtained from one mode of testing and training could be applied to another mode, as in cycling and running. The secondary objective was to assess the validity of applying data from incremental testing to steady state exercise Sixteen experienced triathletes performed VO2 max testing on a cycle ergometer(CE) and treadmill(TM) In addition, a 30-minute time trial(TT) was performed on CE. No significant differences were observed between modes of testing for VO2 max(CE=68.4±11.1 ml/kg/min, TM=69.0±13.2 ml/kg/min), maximum heart rate(CE=177.1±6.1 bpm, TM=178.1±7.4 bpm), or AT(CE ATHR= 153.9±10.5 bpm, TM ATHR=157.0±9.5 bpm). While the mean difference in ATHR was small(3.1 bpm), a small correlation coefficient(.321) between the AT for the 2 testing modes resulted in a large total error(TE =9.9 bpm), indicating limited practical application of training zones between modes of testing.
Mean TT heart rate(TTHR) was significantly greater than mean ATHR(159.4±8.9 vs 153.9±10.5 bpm) due to significant “drift” in these 2 variables over time, while TT watts and AT watts were not significantly different(249.1±47.8 vs 240.6±71.1 watts). It is suggested that the latter may be a better method of monitoring training intensity for CE.
