Maximal oxygen uptake during field running does not exceed that measured during treadmill exercise

Abstract

Modern ergometric equipment enables the simulation of laboratory maximal oxygen uptake (.VO(2max)) testing in the field. Therefore, it was investigated whether the improved event specificity on the track might lead to higher .VO(2max) measurements in running. Identical protocols were used on the treadmill and on the track (speed was indicated by a computer-driven flashing light system). Ambulatory measurements of gas exchange were carried out throughout both tests, which were executed in randomized order. There were no significant differences ( P=0.71) in .VO(2max) between treadmill [4.65 (0.51) ml.min(-1)] and field tests [4.63 (0.55) ml.min(-1)]. However, the test duration differed significantly ( P<0.001) by approximately 5%: treadmill 691 (39) s; field test 727 (42) s. With the exception of maximum heart rate (HR(max); significantly higher in the field with P=0.02) all criteria for the degree of effort were similar between the two tests. However, the difference in HR(max) at less than 2 beats.min(-1), was practically negligible. Submaximal measurements of oxygen uptake and minute ventilation were significantly higher on the treadmill ( P<0.001 for both parameters). In summary, field tests with incremental running protocols do not result in higher .VO(2max) measurements compared to laboratory treadmill exercise. A better running economy on the track results in higher maximal velocities and longer exercise durations being sustained. The determination of .VO(2max) is not a reasonable application for ambulatory gas exchange measurements because laboratory values are not surpassed.

From Lab to Field Conditions: A Pilot Study on EEG Methodology in Applied Sports Sciences

“…Both frontal Theta and parietal Alpha-2 power values between the laboratory and the field condition during performance as well as during rest appear to be similar bur not exactly equivalent. This goes along with findings from former lab-field comparisons in other areas of sports and exercise (Riley et al 2008;Meyer et al 2003;Di Michele et al 2009). It may indicate that on the one hand the cognitive load in laboratory tasks seems to be related to field conditions but also calls for survey in field environments to exactly determine cortical activation patterns.…”

“…Their results were comparable but not directly equivalent. In addition, it has been shown by Meyer et al (2003) andDi Michele et al (2009) that identical running protocols on different surfaces like treadmill, track, natural grass or synthetic turf cause varying physiological responses. These findings suggest that data from laboratory examinations are similar to field conditions but can not be transferred unevaluated.…”

Physiological responses to nordic walking, walking and jogging

“…We measured differences of 8% at 1.8 m s À1 and 7% at 2.1 m s À1 , which roughly correspond to values of 12% at 1.86 m s À1 as reported by Rodgers et al (1995), but differ from those given by Church et al (2002) and Porcari et al (1997) who found differences as high as 20.6% (at 1.65 m s À1 ) and 23% (at 1.69 m s À1 ), respectively. Because it is known that _ V O 2 during endurance tests with (Doyon et al 2001) and without (Jones and Doust 1996;Meyer et al 2003) the use of poles is increased on the treadmill compared with FT as well as the fact that running on a treadmill affects the movement patterns compared with running in a natural environment (Nigg et al 1995;Wank et al 1998), also the use of a treadmill in the study of Porcari et al (1997) may have contributed to the differences in _ V O 2 values. NW on a treadmill may probably not represent free W with walking poles as optimal pole plant with a fixed ground contact is impaired by the moving walking belt.…”

“…Comparative studies between field and treadmill tests have shown higher _ V O 2 for running with submaximal intensities on treadmills than during field tests (Jones and Doust 1996;Meyer et al 2003). The _ V O 2 peak and the heart rate (HR) of double poling cross-country skiers were elevated on the treadmill compared with a field test (FT) (Doyon et al 2001).…”

Validation of the 15 Minute Balke Field Test for Competitive, Adult 5K Runners: From Treadmill VO<SUB>2max</SUB> Testing to Enhancing Performance

“…In a study conducted by Meyer et al, researchers did not find significant differences between track and treadmill VO 2max values, yet, they did find higher submaximal VO 2 values on the treadmill. [16] The consistently lower field VO 2max values for runners found in our study may be related to the fact that treadmill testing only requires runners to be at maximal effort for a brief period of time, thus limiting the cumulative effects of performance factors such as motivation, pain tolerance, psychological makeup, and running economy. [17,18] Unless runners have mastered these factors, these have the effect of limiting the extent to which one can run to their lab tested, treadmill VO 2max during a competitive event of significant duration such as a 5K.…”