Int J Sports Med 2021; 42(02): 161-168
DOI: 10.1055/a-1082-1372
Training & Testing

Determination of Maximum Accumulated Oxygen Deficit Using Backward Extrapolation

1  Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho Campus de Rio Claro, Instituto de Biociências UNESP, Rio Claro, Brazil
2  Physical Education, Centro Universitaro UNIFAFIBE, Bebedouro, Brazil
3  Rehabilitation and Functional performance, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
Nayan Xavier Ribeiro
4  Physical Education, USP EEFERP, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
Ronaldo Bucken Gobbi
5  São Paulo , Physical Education, Rio Claro, Brazil
Tarine Botta de Arruda
4  Physical Education, USP EEFERP, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
Marcelo Papoti
6  School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Funding We would like to thank Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for the financial support (13/15322–3) and the support of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES - 1783785).


This study aimed to compare the Maximum Accumulated Oxygen Deficit determined by the conventional method (MAODC) with that determined by the backward extrapolation technique (MAODEXTR) in runners. Fourteen runners underwent a maximal incremental test for determination of iVO2MAX, ten submaximal efforts (50–95% of iVO2MAX for 7 min). During the submaximal efforts oxygen consumption (VO2) values were obtained conventionally and through the backward extrapolation technique (~ 3 s after the end of each effort). A supramaximal effort (110% of iVO2MAX) (tLimC) and five supramaximal bouts (tLimEXTR) were performed. MAODC and MAODEXTR were determined from the difference between the VO2 accumulated during tLimC and tLimEXTR and the predicted values. The tLimC was lower than tLimEXTR (164.06±36.32 s, 200.23±63.78 s, p<0.05). No significant differences were found between absolute and relative MAODC and MAODEXTR values, however, low intraclass correlations (0.26 and 0.24), high typical errors (2.03 L and 24 mL∙kg−1) were observed, and coefficients of variation (46 and 48%), respectively. The graphical analysis of the differences showed agreement and correlation between the methods (r=0.86 and 0.85). Thus, it can be concluded that the MAODEXTR is not a valid method for estimating the anaerobic capacity of runners, moreover, unreliable.

Publication History

Received: 05 June 2019

Accepted: 01 December 2019

Publication Date:
13 September 2020 (online)

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany