A comparison of two methods for the calculation of accumulated oxygen deficit

Gardner, Andrew, Osborne, Mark, D'Auria, Shaun and Jenkins, David (2003) A comparison of two methods for the calculation of accumulated oxygen deficit. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21 3: 155-162.


Author Gardner, Andrew
Osborne, Mark
D'Auria, Shaun
Jenkins, David
Title A comparison of two methods for the calculation of accumulated oxygen deficit
Journal name Journal of Sports Sciences   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0264-0414
Publication date 2003-03
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1080/0264041031000070877
Volume 21
Issue 3
Start page 155
End page 162
Total pages 8
Editor A. Nevill
Place of publication Abingdon, UK
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Collection year 2003
Language eng
Subject C1
321401 Exercise Physiology
750203 Organised sports
Abstract The aim of this study was to compare accumulated oxygen deficit data derived using two different exercise protocols with the aim of producing a less time-consuming test specifically for use with athletes. Six road and four track male endurance cyclists performed two series of cycle ergometer tests. The first series involved five 10 min sub-maximal cycle exercise bouts, a (V) over dotO(2peak) test and a 115% (V) over dotO(2peak) test. Data from these tests were used to estimate the accumulated oxygen deficit according to the calculations of Medbo et al. (1988). In the second series of tests, participants performed a 15 min incremental cycle ergometer test followed, 2 min later, by a 2 min variable resistance test in which they completed as much work as possible while pedalling at a constant rate. Analysis revealed that the accumulated oxygen deficit calculated from the first series of tests was higher (P< 0.02) than that calculated from the second series: 52.3 +/- 11.7 and 43.9 +/- 6.4 ml . kg(-1), respectively (mean +/- s). Other significant differences between the two protocols were observed for (V) over dot O-2peak, total work and maximal heart rate; all were higher during the modified protocol (P<0.01 and P< 0.02, respectively). Oxygen kinetics were also significantly faster during the modified 2 min maximal test. We conclude that the difference in accumulated oxygen deficit between protocols was probably due to a reduced oxygen uptake, possibly caused by a slower oxygen on-response during the 115% (V) over dot O-2peak test in the first series, and (V) over dot O-2-power output regression differences caused by an elevated (V) over dot O-2 during the early stages of the second series.
Keyword Sport Sciences
Accumulated Oxygen Deficit
Anaerobic Capacity
Cycling
'modified' Accumulated Oxygen Deficit
O-2 Deficit
Exercise
Performance
Muscle
Kinetics
Q-Index Code C1

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 11 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 222 Abstract Views  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 01:33:10 EST