Introduction: Traditional graded-exercise tests to volitional exhaustion (GXTs) are limited by the need to establish starting workloads, stage durations, and step increments. Short-duration time-trials (TTs) may be easier to implement and more ecologically valid in terms of real-world athletic events. The purpose of the current study was to assess the reliability and validity of maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]max) and performance measured during a traditional GXT (STEP) and a four-minute running time-trial (RunTT). Methods: Ten recreational runners (age: 32 ± 7 years; body mass: 69 ± 10 kg) completed five STEP tests with a verification phase (VER) and five self-paced RunTTs on a treadmill. The order of the STEP/VER and RunTT trials was alternated and counter-balanced. Performance was measured as time to exhaustion (TTE) for STEP and VER and distance covered for RunTT. Results: The coefficient of variation (CV) for [Formula: see text]max was similar between STEP, VER, and RunTT (1.9 ± 1.0, 2.2 ± 1.1, and 1.8 ± 0.8%, respectively), but varied for performance between the three types of test (4.5 ± 1.9, 9.7 ± 3.5, and 1.8 ± 0.7% for STEP, VER, and RunTT, respectively). Bland-Altman limits of agreement (bias ± 95%) showed [Formula: see text]max to be 1.6 ± 3.6 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) higher for STEP vs. RunTT. Peak HR was also significantly higher during STEP compared with RunTT (P = 0.019). Conclusion: A four-minute running time-trial appears to provide more reliable performance data in comparison to an incremental test to exhaustion, but may underestimate [Formula: see text]max.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,633,677
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,346
of 13,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,246
of 310,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#57
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
