Category

3MT - Three Minute Thesis

Description

Ultramarathons consist of any distance greater than the standard marathon distance (26.2 miles or 46 kilometers) and participation has increased since the late 20th century (Hoffman and Fogard, 2011). Although popularity has increased, a gold standard for aerobic capacity testing is yet to be established. The purpose was to compare two aerobic capacity tests on VO2max in ultramarathon runners. Eight Ultramarathon athletes were recruited for the study (36.4years + 10.1 years, 179.1cm + 4.0cm, 77.3kg + 7.9kg, 15.4%BF + 5.8%BF), one participant was dropped from the study due to inability to complete the necessary protocols. Participants reported to the Human Performance Lab at Liberty University twice 72-hours apart and completed two separate aerobic capacity tests. Upon arrival participants completed a consent form approved by the IRB at Liberty University and a Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Afterwards participants would complete an InBody, to evaluate percent body fat, and then completed an aerobic capacity test which was either the Bruce or Costill/Fox protocol. The data was collected and analyzed through SPSS and an independent t-test was performed, significance was set at p< 0.05. The results of the study were not significant (p< .790) although VO2max was higher in the Bruce Protocol compared to the Costill/Fox Protocol (54.5 + 6.5, 53.7 + 6.2). Although the results of the study were not significant, this can potentially be contributed to the small sample size (n=7). However, the results revealed a trend that five out of seven participants performed better on the Bruce Protocol. Therefore, future research should include a larger sample size that may assist with determining which protocol is best for evaluating an ultramarathon runner’s performance.

Comments

Graduate

Share

COinS
 
Apr 18th, 1:30 PM

The Comparison between Two Aerobic Capacity Tests on VO2max in Ultramarathon

3MT - Three Minute Thesis

Ultramarathons consist of any distance greater than the standard marathon distance (26.2 miles or 46 kilometers) and participation has increased since the late 20th century (Hoffman and Fogard, 2011). Although popularity has increased, a gold standard for aerobic capacity testing is yet to be established. The purpose was to compare two aerobic capacity tests on VO2max in ultramarathon runners. Eight Ultramarathon athletes were recruited for the study (36.4years + 10.1 years, 179.1cm + 4.0cm, 77.3kg + 7.9kg, 15.4%BF + 5.8%BF), one participant was dropped from the study due to inability to complete the necessary protocols. Participants reported to the Human Performance Lab at Liberty University twice 72-hours apart and completed two separate aerobic capacity tests. Upon arrival participants completed a consent form approved by the IRB at Liberty University and a Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Afterwards participants would complete an InBody, to evaluate percent body fat, and then completed an aerobic capacity test which was either the Bruce or Costill/Fox protocol. The data was collected and analyzed through SPSS and an independent t-test was performed, significance was set at p< 0.05. The results of the study were not significant (p< .790) although VO2max was higher in the Bruce Protocol compared to the Costill/Fox Protocol (54.5 + 6.5, 53.7 + 6.2). Although the results of the study were not significant, this can potentially be contributed to the small sample size (n=7). However, the results revealed a trend that five out of seven participants performed better on the Bruce Protocol. Therefore, future research should include a larger sample size that may assist with determining which protocol is best for evaluating an ultramarathon runner’s performance.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.