Predictive and Cross-Validation Analysis of Aerobic and Anaerobic Performance Based on Maximum Strength
To establish the capacity of absolute maximum strength and relative to body mass (BM) in deadlift (DL) and squat (SQ) exercises to estimate the maximum anaerobic running performance (MART) and maximum aerobic power (V<sub>Peak</sub>), among individuals stratified into high (HS) vs. low s...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/2/693 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | To establish the capacity of absolute maximum strength and relative to body mass (BM) in deadlift (DL) and squat (SQ) exercises to estimate the maximum anaerobic running performance (MART) and maximum aerobic power (V<sub>Peak</sub>), among individuals stratified into high (HS) vs. low strength score (LS). The sum of workloads (DL+SQ) was also analyzed and cross-validation was tested. Thirty-four students performed five visits in the first phase. In the first three visits the following were performed: sample characterization and consistency analysis of the maximum repetition (RM) for DL and SQ. Participants were stratified based on DL and SQ relativized by BM (DL/BM and SQ/BM). In the last two visits, MART and V<sub>Peak</sub> were tested. Linear regression for HS participants did not predict MART for all strength measures. In contrast, the regressive model was significant for DL (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.482; <i>p</i> = 0.002), DL/BM (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.764; <i>p</i> < 0.001), SQ (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.357; <i>p</i> = 0.011) and SQ/BM (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.644; <i>p</i> < 0.001) in LS participants, compared to MART performance. For V<sub>Peak</sub>, linear regression also did not demonstrate an association for all strength measures in HS participants. However, SQ (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.309; <i>p</i> = 0.021), DL/BM (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.343; <i>p</i> = 0.013) and SQ/BM (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.618; <i>p</i> < 0.001) were able to predict V<sub>Peak</sub>. The prediction from the sum of the DL+SQ produced an association for MART (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.451; <i>p</i> = 0.003) and V<sub>Peak</sub> (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.273; <i>p</i> = 0.031) in LS participants. In the second phase of the study, 17 participants performed cross-validation by testing the prediction equations. The same methodological procedures were performed for this phase, but only LS participants were tested. The Wilcoxon test compared real MART vs. predicted for DL (<i>p</i> = 0.02) and SQ (<i>p</i> = 0.043), showing differences, but not for DL/BM (<i>p</i> = 0.051) and SQ/BM (<i>p</i> = 0.093). The Wilcoxon test also showed differences for real V<sub>Peak</sub> vs. predicted for DL/BM (<i>p</i> = 0.002), SQ (<i>p</i> = 0.019) and SQ/BM (<i>p</i> = 0.05). The MART predictive equation based on DL+SQ did not show differences (<i>p</i> = 0.148), but the same did not occur for V<sub>Peak</sub> based on DL+SQ (<i>p</i> = 0.008). Maximum strength did not show predictive capacity in HS participants. However, it was significant for LS participants. DL showed greater predictive prominence for MART. In contrast, for V<sub>Peak</sub>, SQ/BM satisfactorily explained the variations in running performance (61%). The predictive equations of MART by DL/BM and SQ/BM were shown to be accurate, as well as DL+SQ to predict MART. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2076-3417 |