Acceso usuarios
Marcelo Pereira dos Santos, Géssyca Tolomeu de Oliveira, Anderson Meireles, Hiago Leandro Rodrigues de Souza, Filipe de Oliveira Mauad, Gustavo R. da Mota, Moacir Marocolo
Background and purpose: Recruiting athletes for participation in scientific investigations pose challenges due to their often tightly regimented schedules, limiting their availability. Consequently, many studies recruit individuals who do not meet the criteria of professional athletes. However, inconsistencies exist in the terminology and physiological characteristics employed to categorize the training status of these individuals. The purpose of the scoping review is to identify primary terminologies along with physiological and training characteristics reported in studies that delineate the training status of cyclists and runners. Material and Methods: A scoping review was conducted utilizing the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, spanning from January 1, 2000, to April 21, 2021. Key eligibility criteria encompassed studies focusing on cyclists and runners. Results: From a pool of 589 studies involving cyclists and 414 studies involving runners, 34 and 23 distinct terminologies associated with the physical conditioning levels of cyclists and runners, respectively, were identified. The most frequently reported physiological variable was the relative V̇O2max, documented in 61.80% and 61.11% of cyclist and runner studies, respectively. However, a considerable number of terminologies were noted for participants exhibiting very similar or identical relative V̇O2max values. Conclusion: The literature exhibits a lack of consistency concerning reported values of relative V̇O2max in studies and their corresponding definitions of fitness levels. Additionally, numerous terminologies are utilized to describe individuals with nearly identical relative V̇O2max values, leading to confusion in study result interpretation, which could impede practical application.
