Affiliation:
1. Center for Sports and Physical Education, Faculty of Human Sciences, Julius-Maximilians-University Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
2. Faculty of Applied Healthcare Sciences, Deggendorf Institute of Technology, Deggendorf, Germany
3. Department of Medicine, Training & Health, Institute of Sports Science, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the test–retest reliability of the continuous (PCr-LA-O2) and intermittent (PCr-LA-O2int) version of the 3-component model of energy distribution in an applied setting. Methods: Sixteen male handball players (age 23 [3] y, height 185 [7] cm, weight 85 [14] kg) completed the 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30–15IFT) twice. Performance was assessed by peak speed (speed of the last successfully completed stage of the 30–15IFT [VIFT], in kilometers per hour) and time to exhaustion (in seconds). Oxygen uptake (in milliliters per kilogram per minute) and blood lactate concentrations (in millimoles per liter) were obtained before, during, and until 15 minutes after exercise. Total metabolic energy (in joules per kilogram), total metabolic power (in watts per kilogram), and energy shares (in joules per kilogram and percentage) of the aerobic (energy contribution of the aerobic system [WAERint]), anaerobic lactic, and anaerobic alactic (anaerobic alactic energy [WPCrint]) systems were calculated using both model versions, respectively. Results: Test–retest reliability was very good for VIFT (limits of agreement [LoA]: −1.13 to 0.63 km·h−1, coefficient of variation [CV%] 1.68), time to exhaustion (LoA: −101 to 38 s, CV% 2.92), peak oxygen uptake (LoA: −2.68 to 4.04 mL·min−1·kg−1, CV% 1.48), and peak heart rate (−6.9 to 7.7 beats·min−1, CV% 1.1), but moderate for change in blood lactate concentration (LoA: −3.84 to 4.07 mmol·L−1, CV% 11.43). Reliability of the modeled total energy and its fractions were high for total metabolic energy (LoA: −1489 to 1177 J·kg−1, CV% 2.88), total metabolic power (LoA: −2.0 to 1.9 W·kg−1, CV% 3.58), contribution of aerobic (LoA: −1673 to 1283 J·kg−1, CV% 3.62), WAERint (LoA: −1760 to 2160 J·kg−1, CV% 6.04), and moderate for anaerobic alactic (LoA: −368 to 439 J·kg−1, CV% 14.85), WPCrint (LoA: −1707 to 988 J·kg−1, CV% 9.98), and energy share of anaerobic lactic concentration (LoA: −229 to 235 J·kg−1, CV% 11.43). Conclusion: Considering the inherent fluctuations of the underlying energetics, the reliabilities of both versions of the 3-component model of energy distribution are acceptable for applied settings.
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Reference35 articles.
1. Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise;Gastin PB,2001
2. Method-induced differences of energy contributions in women’s kayaking;Li Y,2018
3. Contribution of blood lactate to the energy expenditure of weight training;Scott CB,2006
4. How anaerobic is the wingate anaerobic test for humans?;Beneke R,2002
5. Determining the contribution of the energy systems during exercise;Artioli GG,2012