ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2012
Reliability and validity of physiological data obtained within a cycle-run transition test in age-group triathletes.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Discovering the sluggishness of triathlon running - using the attractor method to quantify the impact of the bike-run transition.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the validity and reliability of a sequential "Run-Bike-Run" test (RBR) in age-group triathletes. Eight Olympic distance (OD) specialists (age 30.0 ± 2.0 years, mass 75.6 ± 1.6 kg, run VO2max 63.8 ± 1.9 ml· kg(-1)· min(-1), cycle VO2peak 56.7 ± 5.1 ml· kg(-1)· min(-1)) performed four trials over 10 days. Trial 1 (TRVO2max) was an incremental treadmill running test. Trials 2 and 3 (RBR1 and RBR2) involved: 1) a 7-min run at 15 km· h(-1) (R1) plus a 1-min transition to 2) cycling to fatigue (2 W· kg(-1) body mass then 30 W each 3 min); 3) 10-min cycling at 3 W· kg(-1) (Bsubmax); another 1-min transition and 4) a second 7-min run at 15 km· h(-1) (R2). Trial 4 (TT) was a 30-min cycle - 20-min run time trial. No significant differences in absolute oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), or blood lactate concentration ([BLA]) were evidenced between RBR1 and RBR2. For all measured physiological variables, the limits of agreement were similar, and the mean differences were physiologically unimportant, between trials. Low levels of test-retest error (i.e. ICC <0.8, CV<10%) were observed for most (logged) measurements. However [BLA] post R1 (ICC 0.87, CV 25.1%), [BLA] post Bsubmax (ICC 0.99, CV 16.31) and [BLA] post R2 (ICC 0.51, CV 22.9%) were least reliable. These error ranges may help coaches detect real changes in training status over time. Moreover, RBR test variables can be used to predict discipline specific and overall TT performance. Cycle VO2peak, cycle peak power output, and the change between R1 and R2 (deltaR1R2) in [BLA] were most highly related to overall TT distance (r = 0.89, p < 0. 01; r = 0.94, p < 0.02; r = 0.86, p < 0.05, respectively). The percentage of TR VO2max at 15 km· h(-1), and deltaR1R2 HR, were also related to run TT distance (r = -0.83 and 0.86, both p < 0.05).
Indexed as
Identifiers
24150086PMC3763322What 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.