Skip to main content
Log in

Test–retest errors and the apparent heterogeneity of training response

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Published reports have shown large apparent inter-individual differences of gains in maximal oxygen intake (O2max) in response to a standard 20-week programme of aerobic conditioning that progressed to 75% of the individual’s initialO2max. The observed gains ofO2max ranged from 0 to 1,000 ml min−1, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.4%. The present analysis evaluates the potential contribution of test–retest errors to these apparent large inter-individual differences in training response. The 2-day test–retest CV forO2max readings in 742 healthy adults was initially 5.0%, dropping to 4.1% after training. Published training responses were estimated from the mean of paired measurements obtained before and after training if readings agreed by <5%, but from the highest of paired values if these differed by >5%. Taking account of the relative proportions of single and paired observations, the weightedO2max data for the entire sample had an effective 2-day CV of 4.3% before and 3.4% after training. Assumption 1: if the 20-week test–retest error remained similar to the 2-day figure, measurement error would contribute a CV of 5.5% to apparent training responses, or (for the stated initial meanO2max of 2,409 ml min−1) an SD of 132 ml min−1. Assumption 2: if the 20-week CV was similar to that in other long-term studies (~5%), measurement error would contribute a CV of 6.1%, or a SD of 146 ml min−1. The published data show a total SD of 202 ml min−1 for apparent inter-individual differences in training response, with age, gender, race and baselineO2max accounting for only 11% of this variance. After estimating the likely effect of test–retest measurement errors, the SD due to inter-individual differences would decrease to 138 ml minO2max (assumption 1) or 123 ml min−1 (assumption 2). We conclude that when estimating the extent of inter-individual differences in training response, allowance must be made not only for the minor effects of recognized covariates (age, gender, race and initial fitness), but also for the larger influence of test-retest measurement errors. Nevertheless, substantial inter-individual differences persist after making such adjustments. The most likely explanation of these differences is a familial aggregation of training responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bouchard C, Rankinen T (2001) Individual differences in response to regular physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: S446–S451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard C, An P, Rice T, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Gagnon J, Pérusse L, Leon AS, Rao DC (1999) Familial aggregation ofO2max response to exercise training: results from the HERITAGE Family Study. J Appl Physiol 87:1003–1009

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter J, Jeukendrup AE (2002) Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:435–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel P, Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Boulay MR, Bouchard C (1986) Heredity and muscle adaptation to endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 18:690–696

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K, Jorgensen S, Johansen L (2002) A metabolic cart for measurement of oxygen uptake during human exercise using inspiratory flow rate. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:202–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones NL, Kane M (1979) Inter-laboratory standardization of methodology. Med Sci Sports Exerc 11:368–372

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prud’homme D, Bouchard C, LeBlanc C, Landry F, Fontaine E (1984) Sensitivity of maximal aerobic power to training is genotype dependent. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16:489–493

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shephard RJ (1994) Aerobic fitness and health. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill.

  • Shephard RJ, Rankinen T, Bouchard C (2003) How much does the error of measurement contribute to the apparent heterogeneity of training response? (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:S192

    Google Scholar 

  • Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Boulay MR, Marcotte M, Thibault MC, Bouchard C (1986) Inheritance of human skeletal muscle and anaerobic capacity adaptation to high intensity intermittent training. Int J Sports Med 7:167–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner JS, Wilmore KH, Jaskola A, Jaskolski A, Daw EW, Rice T, Gagnon J, Leon AS, Wilmore JH, Rao DC, Bouchard C (1999) Reproducibility of maximal exercise test data in the HERITAGE Family Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:1623–1628

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor HL, Buskirk ER, Henschel A (1955) Maximal oxygen intake as an objective measure of the cardiorespiratory performance. J Appl Physiol 8:73–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright GR, Sidney K, Shephard RJ (1978) Variance of direct and indirect measurements of aerobic power. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 18:33–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wyndham CH, Strydom NB, Maritz JS, Morrison JF, Peter J, Potgieter ZU (1959) Maximum oxygen intake and maximum heart rate during strenuous work. J Appl Physiol 14:927–936

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. Shephard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shephard, R.J., Rankinen, T. & Bouchard, C. Test–retest errors and the apparent heterogeneity of training response. Eur J Appl Physiol 91, 199–203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0990-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0990-4

Keywords

Navigation