Anaerobic Threshold Assessment Through the Ventilatory Method During Roller-Ski Skating Testing: Right or Wrong?

Abstract

This study aimed at questioning the validity of the ventilatory method to determine the anaerobic threshold (respiratory compensation point [RCP]) during an incremental roller-ski skating test to exhaustion. Nine elite crosscountry skiers were evaluated. The skiers carried out an incremental roller-ski test on a treadmill with the V2 skating technique. Ventilatory parameters were continuously collected breath by breath, thanks to a portable gas exchange measurement system. Poling signal was obtained using instrumented ski poles. For each stage, ventilatory and poling signals were synchronized and averaged. The poor coefficient of interobserver reliability for the time at RCP confirmed the great difficulty felt by the 3 blinded reviewers for the RCP determination. Moreover, the reviewer agreed with the impossibility of determining RCP in 4 of the 9 skiers. There was no significant difference between breathing frequency (Bf) and poling frequency (Pf) during the last 8 stages. However, it seems that the differences observed during the first stages arose from the use of either a strictly 1:1 or a 1:2 Bf to Pf ratio when the exercise intensity was still moderate. So, even if there were significant differences between the frequencies, the Bf was strictly subordinate to the Pf during the entire test. In the same way, the normalized tidal volume and peak poling forces curves were superposable. These findings showed that when the upper body is mainly involved in the propulsion, the determinants of the ventilation are strictly dependent on the poling pattern during an incremental test to exhaustion. Thus, during roller-ski skating, the determination of RCP must be used cautiously because too much depending on mechanical factors.

Assessment of Heart Rate Variability Thresholds from Incremental Treadmill Tests in Five Cross-Country Skiing Techniques

“…With regards to the relationships between breathing and poling frequencies, all five tests had a tendency to show an increased BF-PF coupling with increased workload and a higher PF than BF during the initial workloads. This is in line with the previous literature [ 18 ]. With regards to the five specific tests, three kinds of BF-PF relationships were observed: 1) In the DP test, BF and PF were synchronised (1:1 BF to PF ratio) almost from the very beginning; 2) the V1 and DS tests showed statistical differences in early and late stages as the BF trend surpassed the PF trend in a cross-like pattern; and 3) the NW and V2 tests presented substantially different BF and PF values except in the last two stages.…”

“…Despite the determination of both VT 1 and VT 2 being challenging because the plots did not always clearly show two inflection points, all VTs except the VT 1 of one subject's DP test were determined. These difficulties were expected as a result of a previous V2 study [ 18 ] which concluded that the determination of VT 2 from Ventilatory gas analysis must be used cautiously in exercises involving upper body movements. It was explained that the PF entrains the BF, preventing the usual inflection-like behaviour of the Ventilatory variables.…”

“…A V2 study [ 18 ] reported that the assessment of VT 2 in exercises involving upper body movements needs to be used cautiously because there is a high entrainment between the BF and PF. With increasing intensity ventilation shows two inflection points during the regular assessment of VTs, when PF is an added variable, PF alters ventilation and we no longer can observe the inflection points.…”

“…Nevertheless, apart from the DP test, the V1 test also showed a 1:1 BF to PF ratio predominance among the subjects, and in the V2 test, a high BF-PF correlation was also confirmed. In the V2 test, most of the subjects adopted 1:1 and/or 1:2 BF to PF ratios as reported in the previous literature [ 16 , 18 ].…”

The Exercise Effect on the Anaerobic Threshold in Response to Graded Exercise

“…Both of which may also have an influence on anaerobic threshold and potentially VO2 max. From a practical point of view, the findings from those studies allow us to establish that, when a really tight coordination exists between breathing and locomotor rhythms, the determination of the anaerobic threshold, thanks to the ventilatory method, must be used cautiously because it mainly depends on mechanical factors (Faber, 2012).…”