Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24501563›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2005

Respiratory Rate is a Valid and Reliable Marker for the Anaerobic Threshold: Implications for Measuring Change in Fitness.

Daniel G Carey, Leslie A Schwarz, German J Pliego, Robert L Raymond

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Physiological and Somatic Principal Components Determining VOInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  5. Air-Filtering Masks for Respiratory Protection from PMOne earth (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel G CareyHealth and Human Performance.
Leslie A SchwarzHealth and Human Performance.
German J PliegoQuantitative Methods and Computer Science, University of St. Thomas , St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Robert L RaymondQuantitative Methods and Computer Science, University of St. Thomas , St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Health and Human Development (2HD) Research Network · CM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anaerobic threshold (AT) has been defined as the theoretical highest exercise level that can be maintained for prolonged periods. It is of practical importance to the competitive endurance athlete to measure progress and plan training programs. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of breakpoint in the respiratory rate (RR) during incremental exercise as a marker for the AT. Secondary objectives were 1) to assess the reliability of the ventilatory threshold (VE) and ventilatory equivalent (VE/VO2) breakpoint, and 2) to assess differences in these 3 methods for their potential to measure change in fitness, as measured by standard error of measurement (SEM), coefficient of variability (CV), and correlation coefficient (R). Fifteen competitive male cyclists (5 category II, 6 category III, 1 category IV, 3 category V United States Cycling Federation) completed 2 maximal oxygen consumption tests within one week on an electronically braked cycle ergometer. A repeated measures Analysis of Variance using 2x3 design (test and methods) resulted in no significant differences (F = 0.02, p = 0.978), indicating that 1)all 3 methods are reproducible, and 2) RR, when compared to VE and VE/VO2, is a valid method of assessing the anaerobic threshold. The lowest SEM, lowest CV and highest R were obtained with the VE method (SEM = 19.4 watts, CV = 6.7%, R = 0.872), compared to VE/VO2 (SEM = 21.5 watts, CV = 7.4%, R=.811) and RR (SEM = 35.3 watts, CV = 12.2%, R = 0.800). From the results of this study, it is concluded that the RR method is a valid and reliable method for detecting AT. However, due to the relatively high SEM and CV, and low R, when compared to VE and VE/VO2, its insensitivity to small changes seen in highly fit athletes would preclude its use in measuring changes in AT. It appears that either VE or VE/VO2 would be appropriate for measuring AT changes in highly fit athletes. Key PointsRespiratory rate is a valid and reliable marker of the anaerobic threshold.Due to a relatively high standard error of measurement and coefficient of variability for the respiratory rate method, use of ventilation (VE) and ventilatory equivalent for oxygen (VE/VO2 is preferred when assessing changes in anaerobic threshold.When assessing changes in maximal aerobic capacity, maximal watts has a lower standard error of measurement and coefficient of variability and is preferred over changes in maximal oxygen consumption.

Indexed as

coefficient of variationReliabilitystandard error of measurementvalidity

Identifiers

PMID24501563
PMCPMC3899665
OpenAlexW2128834012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.