The sensitivity of the alternative maximal accumulated oxygen deficit method to discriminate training status

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to investigate the sensitivity of an alternative maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD_ALT) method to discriminate the “anaerobic” capacity while comparing: least trained (LT) participants (n = 12), moderately trained (MT) participants (n = 12), endurance trained (ET) participants (n = 16), and rugby (RG) players (n = 11). Participants underwent a graded exercise test on a treadmill and a supramaximal effort for assessing MAOD_ALT. MAOD_ALT was calculated as the sum of oxygen equivalents from the phosphagen and glycolytic metabolic pathways. MAOD_ALT was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in RG (64.4 ± 12.1 mL · kg⁻¹) than in ET (56.8 ± 5.4 mL · kg⁻¹; effect size [ES] = 0.77; +13.5%), MT (53.8 ± 5.3 mL · kg⁻¹; ES = 1.08; +19.8%), and LT (49.9 ± 4.5 mL · kg⁻¹; ES = 1.50; +36.4%). In addition, the magnitude-based inference analysis revealed that MAOD_ALT was likely (LT vs. MT), very likely (MT vs. RG, and ET vs. RG) and most likely (LT vs. ET, and LT vs. RG) different between all groups, except for MT and ET, which presented an unclear difference. In conclusion, MAOD_ALT was sensitive enough to distinguish the “anaerobic” capacity in individuals with different training status, especially for RG players compared with LT participants and MT participants.

KEYWORDS:

• “Anaerobic” capacity
• blood lactate response
• excessive post-exercise oxygen consumption
• physical conditioning

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Ireneu Loturco, director of the Nucleus of High Performance in Sport (NAR; São Paulo, Brazil), who made it possible to evaluate at Brazilian Rugby Sevens Team.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The author and co-authors have contributed substantially to this original work and approved the

final submission. This work is not being considered for publication, in whole or in part, in another

journal, book, or conference proceedings and the author and co-authors have no conflicts of interest.

The author and co-authors reviewed the final stages of the manuscript.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by grants from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP #2013/12940-8). Miyagi WE was supported by FAPESP fellowship (FAPESP #2014/02829-5).