The Effect of Different Exercise Protocols and Regression-Based Algorithms on the Assessment of the Anaerobic Threshold
Zuniga, JM, Housh, TJ, Camic, CL, Bergstrom, HC, Schmidt, RJ, and Johnson, GO. The effect of different exercise protocols and regression-based algorithms on the assessment of the anaerobic threshold. J Strength Cond Res 28(9): 2507–2512, 2014—The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of ramp and step incremental cycle ergometer tests on the assessment of the anaerobic threshold (AT) using 3 different computerized regression-based algorithms. Thirteen healthy adults (mean age and body mass [SD] = 23.4 [3.3] years and body mass = 71.7 [11.1] kg) visited the laboratory on separate occasions. Two-way repeated measures analyses of variance with appropriate follow-up procedures were used to analyze the data. The step protocol resulted in greater mean values across algorithms than the ramp protocol for the V[Combining Dot Above]O2 (step = 1.7 [0.6] L·min−1 and ramp = 1.5 [0.4] L·min−1) and heart rate (HR) (step = 133  b·min−1 and ramp = 124  b·min−1) at the AT. There were no significant mean differences, however, in power outputs at the AT between the step (115.2 [44.3] W) and the ramp (112.2 [31.2] W) protocols. Furthermore, there were no significant mean differences for V[Combining Dot Above]O2, HR, or power output across protocols among the 3 computerized regression-based algorithms used to estimate the AT. The current findings suggested that the protocol selection, but not the regression-based algorithms can affect the assessment of the V[Combining Dot Above]O2 and HR at the AT.