Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Canário-Lemos, Rui
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Machado-Reis, Víctor, Garrido, Nuno Domingos, Rafael-Moreira, Tiago, Peixoto, Rafael, Nobre-Pinheiro, Bruno, Vilaça-Alves, José
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.26611
Resumo: Air Bike ergometers have recently appeared and become popular among fitness. These ergometers combine the use of upper or lower limbs while remaining seated. Its characteristic is that of a system of external load imposed through air resistance which increases with the cadence imposed on the equipment. The present study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the ramp test and standard leg-cycle ergometer to assess maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max). For this purpose, 18 physically active young men, aged between 19 and 29 years (mean ± standard deviation= 21.78± 2.44), performed three maximal incremental ramp tests in random order: one test on a cycle ergometer and two tests on an Air Bike arm- and leg- ergometer (test and re-test) with cardiorespiratory measurements throughout the tests. VO2max and maximum heart rate (HRmax) were significantly higher in the Air Bike compared with the cycle ergometer (53.06± 8.72 vs 47.38± 9.15 mL/min/kg), 181.93± 10.20 vs 176.07± 5.28 bpm, p< 0.001; 95%CI 3.41–7.95; ES= 0.30 and p= 0.01; 95%CI 1.44–10.29; ES= 0.34, respectively for VO2max and HRmax). There were no differences between the two ergometers in the maximum respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and test duration (1.21± 0.13 vs 1.21± 0.13, 598.06± 37.28 vs 612.22± 86.40 s, p= 0.9; IC95% –0.05 – –0.05; ES= 0 and p= 0.4; 95%CI –46.12–17.79; ES= –0.11, respectively for RER and test duration). Both VO2max and HRmax showed to be reliable when assessed with the Air Bike ergometer. The maximal test carried out on the Air Bike is a reliable ergometer to assess VO2max and probably enables a higher VO2max as compared with a standard leg-cycle ergometer.
id RCAP_8e74b51c158dc904d2d5f4f72831cce9
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistas.rcaap.pt:article/26611
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometerOriginal ArticleAir Bike ergometers have recently appeared and become popular among fitness. These ergometers combine the use of upper or lower limbs while remaining seated. Its characteristic is that of a system of external load imposed through air resistance which increases with the cadence imposed on the equipment. The present study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the ramp test and standard leg-cycle ergometer to assess maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max). For this purpose, 18 physically active young men, aged between 19 and 29 years (mean ± standard deviation= 21.78± 2.44), performed three maximal incremental ramp tests in random order: one test on a cycle ergometer and two tests on an Air Bike arm- and leg- ergometer (test and re-test) with cardiorespiratory measurements throughout the tests. VO2max and maximum heart rate (HRmax) were significantly higher in the Air Bike compared with the cycle ergometer (53.06± 8.72 vs 47.38± 9.15 mL/min/kg), 181.93± 10.20 vs 176.07± 5.28 bpm, p< 0.001; 95%CI 3.41–7.95; ES= 0.30 and p= 0.01; 95%CI 1.44–10.29; ES= 0.34, respectively for VO2max and HRmax). There were no differences between the two ergometers in the maximum respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and test duration (1.21± 0.13 vs 1.21± 0.13, 598.06± 37.28 vs 612.22± 86.40 s, p= 0.9; IC95% –0.05 – –0.05; ES= 0 and p= 0.4; 95%CI –46.12–17.79; ES= –0.11, respectively for RER and test duration). Both VO2max and HRmax showed to be reliable when assessed with the Air Bike ergometer. The maximal test carried out on the Air Bike is a reliable ergometer to assess VO2max and probably enables a higher VO2max as compared with a standard leg-cycle ergometer.Introdução: Os ergômetros Air Bike surgiram recentemente e rapidamente ficaram populares no fitness. Estes ergômetros combinam o uso de membros superiores ou inferiores, mesmo quando está sentado. Tem como característica um sistema de carga externa imposta através da resistência do ar que aumenta com a cadência imposta. Objetivo: o objetivo do presente estudo foi investigar se um teste de rampa incremental no ergômetro Air Bike é uma ferramenta válida e confiável para avaliar o consumo máximo de oxigênio (VO2max). Métodos: Para isso, dezoito homens jovens fisicamente ativos, com idades entre 19 e 29 anos (média ± desvio padrão = 21,78 ± 2,44), realizaram três testes de rampa incremental máxima em ordem aleatória: um teste em cicloergômetro e dois testes na Air Bike (teste e reteste) com medidas cardiorrespiratórias ao longo dos testes. Resultados: O VO2máx e a frequência cardíaca máxima (FCmáx) foram significativamente maiores na Air Bike em relação ao cicloergômetro (53,06 ± 8,72 vs 47,38 ± 9,15 mL/min/kg), 181,93 ± 10,20 vs 176,07 ± 5,28 bpm, p<0,001; IC 95% = 3,41 - 7,95; ES = 0,30 ep = 0,01; IC 95% = 1,44 - 10,29; ES = 0,34, respectivamente para VO2max e FCmax). Não houve diferenças entre os dois ergômetros na relação de troca respiratória máxima (RER) e duração do teste (1,21 ± 0,13 vs 1,21 ± 0,13, 598,06 ± 37,28 vs 612,22 s ± 86,40, p = 0,9; IC95 % = -0,05 - 0,05; ES = 0 ep = 0,4; IC 95% = -46,12 - 17,79; ES = -0,11, respectivamente para RER e duração do teste). Tanto o VO2máx quanto a FCmáx mostraram-se confiáveis ​​quando avaliados com o ergômetro Air Bike. Conclusão: O teste máximo realizado na Air Bike é uma ferramenta válida e confiável para avaliar o VO2máx e provavelmente possibilita um VO2máx mais elevado em comparação com o cicloergômetro padrão.Edições Sílabas Didáticas2022-09-30info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.26611eng2182-29721646-107XCanário-Lemos, RuiMachado-Reis, VíctorGarrido, Nuno DomingosRafael-Moreira, TiagoPeixoto, RafaelNobre-Pinheiro, BrunoVilaça-Alves, Joséinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-04-27T13:45:13Zoai:ojs.revistas.rcaap.pt:article/26611Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:29:25.791176Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
title Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
spellingShingle Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
Canário-Lemos, Rui
Original Article
title_short Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
title_full Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
title_fullStr Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
title_full_unstemmed Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
title_sort Validity and reliability of maximum oxygen uptake on an Air Bike arm- and leg-ergometer
author Canário-Lemos, Rui
author_facet Canário-Lemos, Rui
Machado-Reis, Víctor
Garrido, Nuno Domingos
Rafael-Moreira, Tiago
Peixoto, Rafael
Nobre-Pinheiro, Bruno
Vilaça-Alves, José
author_role author
author2 Machado-Reis, Víctor
Garrido, Nuno Domingos
Rafael-Moreira, Tiago
Peixoto, Rafael
Nobre-Pinheiro, Bruno
Vilaça-Alves, José
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Canário-Lemos, Rui
Machado-Reis, Víctor
Garrido, Nuno Domingos
Rafael-Moreira, Tiago
Peixoto, Rafael
Nobre-Pinheiro, Bruno
Vilaça-Alves, José
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Original Article
topic Original Article
description Air Bike ergometers have recently appeared and become popular among fitness. These ergometers combine the use of upper or lower limbs while remaining seated. Its characteristic is that of a system of external load imposed through air resistance which increases with the cadence imposed on the equipment. The present study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the ramp test and standard leg-cycle ergometer to assess maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max). For this purpose, 18 physically active young men, aged between 19 and 29 years (mean ± standard deviation= 21.78± 2.44), performed three maximal incremental ramp tests in random order: one test on a cycle ergometer and two tests on an Air Bike arm- and leg- ergometer (test and re-test) with cardiorespiratory measurements throughout the tests. VO2max and maximum heart rate (HRmax) were significantly higher in the Air Bike compared with the cycle ergometer (53.06± 8.72 vs 47.38± 9.15 mL/min/kg), 181.93± 10.20 vs 176.07± 5.28 bpm, p< 0.001; 95%CI 3.41–7.95; ES= 0.30 and p= 0.01; 95%CI 1.44–10.29; ES= 0.34, respectively for VO2max and HRmax). There were no differences between the two ergometers in the maximum respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and test duration (1.21± 0.13 vs 1.21± 0.13, 598.06± 37.28 vs 612.22± 86.40 s, p= 0.9; IC95% –0.05 – –0.05; ES= 0 and p= 0.4; 95%CI –46.12–17.79; ES= –0.11, respectively for RER and test duration). Both VO2max and HRmax showed to be reliable when assessed with the Air Bike ergometer. The maximal test carried out on the Air Bike is a reliable ergometer to assess VO2max and probably enables a higher VO2max as compared with a standard leg-cycle ergometer.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-09-30
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.26611
url https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.26611
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2182-2972
1646-107X
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Edições Sílabas Didáticas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Edições Sílabas Didáticas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130751503958016