Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study

This study aimed to cross-validate a recently proposed equation for the prediction of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) in cycling exercise by using the average power output normalized by the body mass from a 5-minute time trial (RPO5-min) as the independent variable. Further, the study aimed to updat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of sports physiology and performance 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.565-575
Hauptverfasser: Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke, Ferreira Tramontin, Artur, de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas, Pereira Costa, Vitor
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 575
container_issue 6
container_start_page 565
container_title International journal of sports physiology and performance
container_volume 19
creator Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke
Ferreira Tramontin, Artur
de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas
Pereira Costa, Vitor
description This study aimed to cross-validate a recently proposed equation for the prediction of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) in cycling exercise by using the average power output normalized by the body mass from a 5-minute time trial (RPO5-min) as the independent variable. Further, the study aimed to update the predictive equation using Bayesian informative prior distributions and meta-analysis. On different days, 49 male cyclists performed an incremental graded exercise test until exhaustion and a 5-minute time trial on a stationary cycle ergometer. We compared the actual V˙O2max with the predicted value obtained from the RPO5-min, using a modified Bayesian Bland-Altman agreement analysis. In addition, this study updated the data on the linear regression between V˙O2max and RPO5-min, by incorporating information from a previous study as a Bayesian informative prior distribution or via meta-analysis. On average, the predicted V˙O2max using RPO5-min underestimated the actual V˙O2max by -6.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 (95% credible interval, -8.6 to -4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1). The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement were -17.2 (-22.7 to -12.3) and 3.8 (-1.0 to 9.5) mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively. When the current study's data were analyzed using the previously published data as a Bayesian informative prior distribution, the accuracy of predicting sample means was found to be better when compared with the data combined via meta-analyses. The proposed equation presented systematic bias in our sample, in which the prediction underestimated the actual V˙O2max. We provide an updated equation using the previous one as the prior distribution, which could be generalized to a greater audience of cyclists.
doi_str_mv 10.1123/ijspp.2023-0330
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3033009369</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3033009369</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-d2bc064157905bcae7422e51fc8fb5c6dd61d54ca1f83225fe401b12604e43973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM1PwkAUxDdGI4ievZk9einsR7elJ0MIKgkEE8Frs92-4mK_3N0a-O9tETm9d5iZzPwQuqdkSCnjI72zdT1khHGPcE4uUJ8KITzCQn55_gPRQzfW7gjxhS_INerxsQgiEUZ99DO32H0CFt5Sl40DvNYFeGujZY6nB5XrcovXYB2W-EPmOsVvBlKtXGVwleGl3OuiVa72hy2UeFM7-QVPeFLi2d6BKbsQU1nrHb3S6arE765JD7foKpO5hbvTHaDN82w9ffUWq5f5dLLwFBPUeSlLFAl82lYlIlESQp8xEDRT4ywRKkjTgKbCV5JmY86YyMAnNKEsID74PAr5AD3-5dam-m7aHXGhrYI8lyVUjY15R41EPIha6ehPqrrGBrK4Nu04c4gpiTvY8RF23MGOO1vreDiFN0kB6Vn_T5f_AvfVeuI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3033009369</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Human Kinetics Journals</source><creator>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke ; Ferreira Tramontin, Artur ; de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas ; Pereira Costa, Vitor</creator><creatorcontrib>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke ; Ferreira Tramontin, Artur ; de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas ; Pereira Costa, Vitor</creatorcontrib><description>This study aimed to cross-validate a recently proposed equation for the prediction of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) in cycling exercise by using the average power output normalized by the body mass from a 5-minute time trial (RPO5-min) as the independent variable. Further, the study aimed to update the predictive equation using Bayesian informative prior distributions and meta-analysis. On different days, 49 male cyclists performed an incremental graded exercise test until exhaustion and a 5-minute time trial on a stationary cycle ergometer. We compared the actual V˙O2max with the predicted value obtained from the RPO5-min, using a modified Bayesian Bland-Altman agreement analysis. In addition, this study updated the data on the linear regression between V˙O2max and RPO5-min, by incorporating information from a previous study as a Bayesian informative prior distribution or via meta-analysis. On average, the predicted V˙O2max using RPO5-min underestimated the actual V˙O2max by -6.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 (95% credible interval, -8.6 to -4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1). The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement were -17.2 (-22.7 to -12.3) and 3.8 (-1.0 to 9.5) mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively. When the current study's data were analyzed using the previously published data as a Bayesian informative prior distribution, the accuracy of predicting sample means was found to be better when compared with the data combined via meta-analyses. The proposed equation presented systematic bias in our sample, in which the prediction underestimated the actual V˙O2max. We provide an updated equation using the previous one as the prior distribution, which could be generalized to a greater audience of cyclists.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1555-0265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-0273</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2023-0330</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38569579</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Bayes Theorem ; Bicycling - physiology ; Exercise Test - methods ; Humans ; Male ; Oxygen Consumption - physiology ; Time Factors ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.565-575</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-d2bc064157905bcae7422e51fc8fb5c6dd61d54ca1f83225fe401b12604e43973</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2084-5137 ; 0000-0001-9146-6858 ; 0000-0002-8566-3086 ; 0000-0002-3773-6906</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38569579$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira Tramontin, Artur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira Costa, Vitor</creatorcontrib><title>Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study</title><title>International journal of sports physiology and performance</title><addtitle>Int J Sports Physiol Perform</addtitle><description>This study aimed to cross-validate a recently proposed equation for the prediction of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) in cycling exercise by using the average power output normalized by the body mass from a 5-minute time trial (RPO5-min) as the independent variable. Further, the study aimed to update the predictive equation using Bayesian informative prior distributions and meta-analysis. On different days, 49 male cyclists performed an incremental graded exercise test until exhaustion and a 5-minute time trial on a stationary cycle ergometer. We compared the actual V˙O2max with the predicted value obtained from the RPO5-min, using a modified Bayesian Bland-Altman agreement analysis. In addition, this study updated the data on the linear regression between V˙O2max and RPO5-min, by incorporating information from a previous study as a Bayesian informative prior distribution or via meta-analysis. On average, the predicted V˙O2max using RPO5-min underestimated the actual V˙O2max by -6.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 (95% credible interval, -8.6 to -4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1). The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement were -17.2 (-22.7 to -12.3) and 3.8 (-1.0 to 9.5) mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively. When the current study's data were analyzed using the previously published data as a Bayesian informative prior distribution, the accuracy of predicting sample means was found to be better when compared with the data combined via meta-analyses. The proposed equation presented systematic bias in our sample, in which the prediction underestimated the actual V˙O2max. We provide an updated equation using the previous one as the prior distribution, which could be generalized to a greater audience of cyclists.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bayes Theorem</subject><subject>Bicycling - physiology</subject><subject>Exercise Test - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1555-0265</issn><issn>1555-0273</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kM1PwkAUxDdGI4ievZk9einsR7elJ0MIKgkEE8Frs92-4mK_3N0a-O9tETm9d5iZzPwQuqdkSCnjI72zdT1khHGPcE4uUJ8KITzCQn55_gPRQzfW7gjxhS_INerxsQgiEUZ99DO32H0CFt5Sl40DvNYFeGujZY6nB5XrcovXYB2W-EPmOsVvBlKtXGVwleGl3OuiVa72hy2UeFM7-QVPeFLi2d6BKbsQU1nrHb3S6arE765JD7foKpO5hbvTHaDN82w9ffUWq5f5dLLwFBPUeSlLFAl82lYlIlESQp8xEDRT4ywRKkjTgKbCV5JmY86YyMAnNKEsID74PAr5AD3-5dam-m7aHXGhrYI8lyVUjY15R41EPIha6ehPqrrGBrK4Nu04c4gpiTvY8RF23MGOO1vreDiFN0kB6Vn_T5f_AvfVeuI</recordid><startdate>20240601</startdate><enddate>20240601</enddate><creator>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke</creator><creator>Ferreira Tramontin, Artur</creator><creator>de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas</creator><creator>Pereira Costa, Vitor</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-5137</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9146-6858</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-3086</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-6906</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240601</creationdate><title>Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study</title><author>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke ; Ferreira Tramontin, Artur ; de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas ; Pereira Costa, Vitor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-d2bc064157905bcae7422e51fc8fb5c6dd61d54ca1f83225fe401b12604e43973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bayes Theorem</topic><topic>Bicycling - physiology</topic><topic>Exercise Test - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira Tramontin, Artur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira Costa, Vitor</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of sports physiology and performance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Borszcz, Fernando Klitzke</au><au>Ferreira Tramontin, Artur</au><au>de Lucas, Ricardo Dantas</au><au>Pereira Costa, Vitor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study</atitle><jtitle>International journal of sports physiology and performance</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Sports Physiol Perform</addtitle><date>2024-06-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>565</spage><epage>575</epage><pages>565-575</pages><issn>1555-0265</issn><eissn>1555-0273</eissn><abstract>This study aimed to cross-validate a recently proposed equation for the prediction of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) in cycling exercise by using the average power output normalized by the body mass from a 5-minute time trial (RPO5-min) as the independent variable. Further, the study aimed to update the predictive equation using Bayesian informative prior distributions and meta-analysis. On different days, 49 male cyclists performed an incremental graded exercise test until exhaustion and a 5-minute time trial on a stationary cycle ergometer. We compared the actual V˙O2max with the predicted value obtained from the RPO5-min, using a modified Bayesian Bland-Altman agreement analysis. In addition, this study updated the data on the linear regression between V˙O2max and RPO5-min, by incorporating information from a previous study as a Bayesian informative prior distribution or via meta-analysis. On average, the predicted V˙O2max using RPO5-min underestimated the actual V˙O2max by -6.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 (95% credible interval, -8.6 to -4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1). The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement were -17.2 (-22.7 to -12.3) and 3.8 (-1.0 to 9.5) mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively. When the current study's data were analyzed using the previously published data as a Bayesian informative prior distribution, the accuracy of predicting sample means was found to be better when compared with the data combined via meta-analyses. The proposed equation presented systematic bias in our sample, in which the prediction underestimated the actual V˙O2max. We provide an updated equation using the previous one as the prior distribution, which could be generalized to a greater audience of cyclists.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>38569579</pmid><doi>10.1123/ijspp.2023-0330</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-5137</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9146-6858</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-3086</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-6906</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1555-0265
ispartof International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.565-575
issn 1555-0265
1555-0273
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3033009369
source MEDLINE; Human Kinetics Journals
subjects Adult
Bayes Theorem
Bicycling - physiology
Exercise Test - methods
Humans
Male
Oxygen Consumption - physiology
Time Factors
Young Adult
title Is the 5-Minute Time-Trial Cycling Test a Valid Predictor of Maximal Oxygen Uptake? An External Cross-Validation Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T21%3A17%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20the%205-Minute%20Time-Trial%20Cycling%20Test%20a%20Valid%20Predictor%20of%20Maximal%20Oxygen%20Uptake?%20An%20External%20Cross-Validation%20Study&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20sports%20physiology%20and%20performance&rft.au=Borszcz,%20Fernando%20Klitzke&rft.date=2024-06-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=565&rft.epage=575&rft.pages=565-575&rft.issn=1555-0265&rft.eissn=1555-0273&rft_id=info:doi/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0330&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3033009369%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3033009369&rft_id=info:pmid/38569579&rfr_iscdi=true