Discussion: "The efficacy of the self-paced VO_2max test to measure maximal oxygen uptake in treadmill running"
| 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 |
