The year 2011 was very interesting regarding new studies, trials and guidelines in the field of lipidology, hypertensiology and nephrology. Suffice it to mention the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias,...

Background: Ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO₂) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular diseases and defines individuals’ responses to exercise. Its characteristics among endurance athletes (EA) remain understudied. In a cohort of EA, we aimed to (1) investigate the relationship between different methods of calculation of VE/VCO₂ and (2) externally validate prediction equations for VE/VCO₂. Methods: In total, 140 EA (55% males; age = 22.7 ± 4.6 yrs; BMI = 22.6 ± 1.7 kg·m⁻²; peak oxygen uptake = 3.86 ± 0.82 L·min⁻¹) underwent an effort-limited cycling cardiopulmonary exercise test. VE/VCO₂ was first calculated to ventilatory threshold (VE/VCO₂-slope), as the lowest 30-s average (VE/VCO₂-Nadir) and from whole exercises (VE/VCO₂-Total). Twelve prediction equations for VE/VCO₂-slope were externally validated. Results: VE/VCO₂-slope was higher in females than males (27.7 ± 2.6 vs. 26.1 ± 2.0, p < 0.001). Measuring methods for VE/VCO₂ differed significantly in males and females. VE/VCO₂ increased in EA with age independently from its type or sex (β = 0.066–0.127). Eleven equations underestimated VE/VCO₂-slope (from −0.5 to −3.6). One equation overestimated VE/VCO₂-slope (+0.2). Predicted and observed measurements differed significantly in nine models. Models explained a low amount of variance in the VE/VCO₂-slope (R² = 0.003–0.031). Conclusions: VE/VCO₂-slope, VE/VCO₂-Nadir, and VE/VCO₂-Total were significantly different in EA. Prediction equations for the VE/VCO₂-slope were inaccurate in EA. Physicians should be acknowledged to properly assess cardiorespiratory fitness in EA.

Maximal heart rate (HRmax) is a widely used measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. Prediction of HRmax is an alternative to cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), but its accuracy among endurance athletes (EA) requires evaluation. This study aimed to externally validate HRmax prediction models in the EA independently for running and cycling CPET. A total of 4043 runners (age = 33.6 (8.1) years; 83.5% males; BMI = 23.7 (2.5) kg·m⁻²) and 1026 cyclists (age = 36.9 (9.0) years; 89.7% males; BMI = 24.0 (2.7) kg·m⁻²) underwent maximum CPET. Student t-test, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and root mean square error (RMSE) were applied to validate eight running and five cycling HRmax equations externally. HRmax was 184.6 (9.8) beats·min⁻¹ and 182.7 (10.3) beats·min⁻¹, respectively, for running and cycling, p = 0.001. Measured and predicted HRmax differed significantly (p = 0.001) for 9 of 13 (69.2%) models. HRmax was overestimated by eight (61.5%) and underestimated by five (38.5%) formulae. Overestimated HRmax amounted to 4.9 beats·min⁻¹ and underestimated HRmax was in the range up to 4.9 beats·min⁻¹. RMSE was 9.1–10.5. MAPE ranged to 4.7%. Prediction models allow for limited precision of HRmax estimation and present inaccuracies. HRmax was more often underestimated than overestimated. Predicted HRmax can be implemented for EA as a supplemental method, but CPET is the preferable method.