Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2004
Scaling or normalising maximum oxygen uptake to predict 1-mile run time in boys.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Size Exponents for Scaling Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Over 6500 Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Pooled it
- Scaling maximal oxygen uptake to predict cycling time-trial performance in the field: a non-linear approach.European journal of applied physiology · 2005Trial
- Developing a New Curvilinear Allometric Model to Improve the Fit and Validity of the 20-m Shuttle Run Test as a Predictor of Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Adults and Youth.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Article
- Expression of VO2peak in Children and Youth, with Special Reference to Allometric Scaling.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
- Optimal [Formula: see text] ratio for predicting 15 km performance among elite male cross-country skiers.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2015Article
- Mechanical work and long-distance performance prediction: the influence of allometric scaling.Journal of human kinetics · 2013Article
- Circulatory "efficacy" during progressive aerobic exercise in children: insights from the Q: VO(2) relationship.European journal of applied physiology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is still considerable debate and some confusion as to the most appropriate method of scaling or normalizing maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) for differences in body mass (m) in both adults and children. Previous studies on adult populations have demonstrated that although the traditional ratio standard VO2max (ml kg(-1) min(-1)) fails to render VO2max independent of body mass, the ratio standard is still the best predictor of running performance. However, no such evidence exists in children. Hence, the purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the ratio standard is still the most appropriate method of normalising VO2max to predict 1-mile run speed in a group of 12-year-old children (n=36). Using a power function model and log-linear regression, the best predictor of 1-mile run speed was given by: speed (m s(-1))=55.1 VO2max(0.986) m(-0.96). With both the VO2max and body mass exponents being close to unity but with opposite signs, the model suggest the best predictor of 1-mile run speed is almost exactly the traditional ratio standard recorded in the units (ml kg(-1) min(-1)). Clearly, reporting the traditional ratio standard VO2max, recorded in the units (ml kg(-1) min(-1)), still has an important place in publishing the results of studies investigating cardiovascular fitness of both children and adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.