AUTHOR=Andersson Erik P. , McGawley Kerry
TITLE=A Comparison between Different Methods of Estimating Anaerobic Energy Production
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Physiology
VOLUME=9
YEAR=2018
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00082
DOI=10.3389/fphys.2018.00082
ISSN=1664-042X
ABSTRACT=Purpose: The present study aimed to compare four methods of estimating anaerobic energy production during supramaximal exercise.
Methods: Twenty-one junior cross-country skiers competing at a national and/or international level were tested on a treadmill during uphill (7°) diagonal-stride (DS) roller-skiing. After a 4-minute warm-up, a 4 × 4-min continuous submaximal protocol was performed followed by a 600-m time trial (TT). For the maximal accumulated O2 deficit (MAOD) method the V.O2-speed regression relationship was used to estimate the V.O2 demand during the TT, either including (4+Y, method 1) or excluding (4-Y, method 2) a fixed Y-intercept for baseline V.O2. The gross efficiency (GE) method (method 3) involved calculating metabolic rate during the TT by dividing power output by submaximal GE, which was then converted to a V.O2 demand. An alternative method based on submaximal energy cost (EC, method 4) was also used to estimate V.O2 demand during the TT.
Results: The GE/EC remained constant across the submaximal stages and the supramaximal TT was performed in 185 ± 24 s. The GE and EC methods produced identical V.O2 demands and O2 deficits. The V.O2 demand was ~3% lower for the 4+Y method compared with the 4-Y and GE/EC methods, with corresponding O2 deficits of 56 ± 10, 62 ± 10, and 63 ± 10 mL·kg−1, respectively (P < 0.05 for 4+Y vs. 4-Y and GE/EC). The mean differences between the estimated O2 deficits were −6 ± 5 mL·kg−1 (4+Y vs. 4-Y, P < 0.05), −7 ± 1 mL·kg−1 (4+Y vs. GE/EC, P < 0.05) and −1 ± 5 mL·kg−1 (4-Y vs. GE/EC), with respective typical errors of 5.3, 1.9, and 6.0%. The mean difference between the O2 deficit estimated with GE/EC based on the average of four submaximal stages compared with the last stage was 1 ± 2 mL·kg−1, with a typical error of 3.2%.
Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a disagreement in the O2 deficits estimated using current methods. In addition, the findings suggest that a valid estimate of the O2 deficit may be possible using data from only one submaximal stage in combination with the GE/EC method.