| dc.citation.doi | 10.1139/apnm-2013-0549 | en_US |
| dc.citation.epage | 588 | en_US |
| dc.citation.issue | 5 | en_US |
| dc.citation.jtitle | Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism | en_US |
| dc.citation.spage | 586 | en_US |
| dc.citation.volume | 39 | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Poole, David C. | |
| dc.contributor.authoreid | dcpoole | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-12-03T17:10:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2014-12-03T17:10:43Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-12-03 | |
| dc.date.published | 2014 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | We wish to raise some concerns about the above study published on-line in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism. Most important is the issue of biased reporting as the authors have failed to acknowledge the findings of a critical paper by Chidnok et al 2013 (first published on-line in the European Journal of Applied Physiology in Sept 2012) which provided a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of a self-paced (RPE-guided) test versus two conventional ramp incremental protocols. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2097/18778 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.relation.uri | http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/apnm-2013-0549 | en_US |
| dc.subject | Discussion | en_US |
| dc.subject | Critique | en_US |
| dc.subject | Biased reporting | en_US |
| dc.subject | Self-paced VO_2max test study | en_US |
| dc.title | Discussion: "The efficacy of the self-paced VO_2max test to measure maximal oxygen uptake in treadmill running" | en_US |
| dc.type | Article (author version) | en_US |
English
العربية
বাংলা
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
فارسی
Suomi
Français
Gàidhlig
ગુજરાતી
हिंदी
Magyar
Italiano
Қазақ
Latviešu
मराठी
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Português do Brasil
Русский
Srpski (lat)
Српски
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Yкраї́нська
Tiếng Việt
繁体中文