Comparison of Different Methods for the Swimming Aerobic Capacity Evaluation. Issue 12 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pelarigo, Jailton G.; Fernandes, Ricardo J.; Ribeiro, João; Denadai, Benedito S.; Greco, Camila C.; Vilas-Boas, João P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 32:Issue 12(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: maximal lactate steady state -- endurance -- oxygen uptake -- blood lactate -- training -- testing; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001873
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Pelarigo, JG, Fernandes, RJ, Ribeiro, J, Denadai, BS, Greco, CC, and Vilas-Boas, JP. Comparison of different methods for the swimming aerobic capacity evaluation. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3551–3560, 2018—This study compared velocity (v) and bioenergetical factors using different methods applied for the swimming aerobic capacity evaluation. Ten elite female swimmers (17.6 ± 1.9 years, 1.70 ± 0.05 m, and 61.3 ± 5.8 kg) performed an intermittent incremental velocity protocol until voluntary exhaustion to determine the v associated with the individual anaerobic threshold (IAnT), ventilatory threshold (VT), heart rate threshold (HRT), lactate threshold fixed in 3.5 mmol·L −1 (LT3.5 ), and maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2 max). Two-to-three 30-minute submaximal constant tests for the v assessment at maximal lactate steady state (MLSS). The v, gas exchange, heart rate, and blood lactate concentration variables were monitored in all tests. The values of all parameters at the v corresponding to MLSS, IAnT, VT, and HRT were similar ( p ⩽ 0.05), with high agreement ( r 2 > 0.400), except for carbon dioxide (V[Combining Dot Above]CO2 ) that was higher for MLSS compared with VT ( p ⩽ 0.05). However, the v at LT3.5 was higher when compared with other methods for v and bioenergetical factors. It is suggested that IAnT, VT, and HRT methods are better predictors of the intensity corresponding to the commonly accepted gold-standard method (i.e., MLSS) for the aerobic capacity evaluation compared with LT3.5 .