↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of a True V˙O2max during a Ramp Incremental Test Is Not Confirmed by a Verification Phase

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measurement of a True V˙O2max during a Ramp Incremental Test Is Not Confirmed by a Verification Phase
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan M. Murias, Silvia Pogliaghi, Donald H. Paterson

Abstract

The accuracy of an exhaustive ramp incremental (RI) test to determine maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) was recently questioned and the utilization of a verification phase proposed as a gold standard. This study compared the oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2) during a RI test to that obtained during a verification phase aimed to confirm attainment of [Formula: see text]O2max. Sixty-one healthy males [31 older (O) 65 ± 5 yrs; 30 younger (Y) 25 ± 4 yrs] performed a RI test (15-20 W/min for O and 25 W/min for Y). At the end of the RI test, a 5-min recovery period was followed by a verification phase of constant load cycling to fatigue at either 85% (n = 16) or 105% (n = 45) of the peak power output obtained from the RI test. The highest [Formula: see text]O2 after the RI test (39.8 ± 11.5 mL·kg-1·min-1) and the verification phase (40.1 ± 11.2 mL·kg-1·min-1) were not different (p = 0.33) and they were highly correlated (r = 0.99; p < 0.01). This response was not affected by age or intensity of the verification phase. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a very small absolute bias (-0.25 mL·kg-1·min-1, not different from 0) and a precision of ±1.56 mL·kg-1·min-1 between measures. This study indicated that a verification phase does not highlight an under-estimation of [Formula: see text]O2max derived from a RI test, in a large and heterogeneous group of healthy younger and older men naïve to laboratory testing procedures. Moreover, only minor within-individual differences were observed between the maximal [Formula: see text]O2 elicited during the RI and the verification phase. Thus a verification phase does not add any validation of the determination of a [Formula: see text]O2max. Therefore, the recommendation that a verification phase should become a gold standard procedure, although initially appealing, is not supported by the experimental data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 37 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,235,628
of 25,014,758 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,728
of 15,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,523
of 335,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#59
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,014,758 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.