Maximal oxygen uptake adjusted for skeletal muscle mass in competitive speed-power and endurance male athletes: Changes in a one-year training cycle

17Citations
Citations of this article
89Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We compared the changes in maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max) calculated per skeletal muscle mass (SMM) with conventional ˙VO2 max measures in a 1-year training cycle. We hypothesized that the pattern of changes would differ between SMM-adjusted and absolute or weight-adjusted values, and the differences between groups of distinct training specialization and status will depend on the measure used. Twelve sprinters (24.7 ± 3.3 years), 10 endurance runners (25.3 ± 5.3 years), and 10 recreationally trained controls (29 ± 4.5 years) performed a treadmill test until exhaustion to determine ˙VO2 max. Their SMM was estimated based on the dual X-ray absorptiometry method and a regression equation. The significance of differences was assessed using analysis of variance (p ≤ 0.05). The pattern of the longitudinal change was not different between ˙VO2 max/SMM and standard measures. Also, the significance of differences between sprinters and endurance athletes remained similar regardless of the ˙VO2 max measure. Sprinters and controls had similar absolute (~4.3 L·min−1) and total weight-adjusted (~52 vs. ~56 mL·min−1·kg) ˙VO2 max, but they significantly differed in SMM-adjusted ˙VO2 max (~110 vs. ~130 mL·min−1·kg SMM−1). In summary, SMM-adjusted ˙VO2 max is not more useful than standard measures to track longitudinal changes in competitive athletes. However, it allows to better distinguish between groups or individuals differing in training status. The results of our study are limited to male athletes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Trinschek, J., Zieliński, J., & Kusy, K. (2020). Maximal oxygen uptake adjusted for skeletal muscle mass in competitive speed-power and endurance male athletes: Changes in a one-year training cycle. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176226

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free