Can Anaerobic Testing Be Used to Accurately Examine VO2max in Healthy Individuals? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Context The gold standard for examining cardiorespiratory performance (i.e., maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O 2max )) involves completing a cardiopulmonary test, which requires both time and trained personnel. In comparison, anaerobic exercise tests examine musculoskeletal performance in a much shorter time. Current evidence suggests that oxygen consumption increases rapidly during maximal effort and that V˙O 2max may be reached within 90 s during maximal exercise. Objective The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to determine if anaerobic exercise tests could examine both V˙O 2max and anaerobic performance in healthy individuals. Design This registered review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligibility Criteria Eligible articles published until March 2024 were found in PubMed and EBSCO. Study Selection After screening 1425 studies, a total of 7 studies were assessed. Main Outcome Measures Both aerobic and anaerobic protocols and their associated V˙O 2max values were extracted along with the percentage of measured V˙O 2max that could be accounted for in the anaerobic test. Results All studies used cycle ergometers with a range of protocols to assess V˙O 2max using both aerobic and anaerobic tests. The maximal percentage of V˙O 2max accounted for in anaerobic tests across the seven studies ranged from 91.0% to 101.2%, with the nearest association of 99.7% found using 60-s Wingate test cycling against a reduced load protocol of 9.5% to 7.5% of the subject’s body mass. Results from the meta-analysis demonstrate higher V˙O 2max values in traditional exercise tests compared with anaerobic tests (effect size, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.08). Conclusion This review suggests that attaining a similar V˙O 2max when using traditional graded exercise tests and anaerobic tests largely depends on the testing protocol. Further research using standardized testing protocols is warranted to establish the utility of brief anaerobic tests for examining cardiorespiratory performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".