Advertisement

Comparability of Absolute and Body-Related Performance Capacity in Ergometry

  • H.-V. Ulmer
Conference paper

Abstract

In the older literature concerning physiology, physiological performance indicators, such as V O 2max, heart volume, or exercise performance are mostly published without relation to individual body parameters. In Germany it is still a convention to characterize the critical heart weight as “500 g” [6, 8,11], without regard to the constitution of the athletes. In recent studies, however, there is an increasing tendency to uniformly calculate all physiological results in relation to body weight, in spite of the fact that, for example, Astrand and Rodahl wrote in 1977: “In work and exercise where the body is lifted (as in walking or running), the oxygen uptake should be related to the body weight” [1].

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Åstrand P-O, Rodahl K (1977) Textbook of work physiology. Physiological bases of exercise. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berres F, Ulmer H-V, Lamberty M (1980) Calculation of total body fat from skinfold thickness by using an age-corrected formula. Pflugers Arch 384: Suppl 35Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonatz H (1970) Über die Entwicklung des subkutanen Fettgewebes und seine Bedeutung als gruppenspezifizierende Korperbauvariable bei mannlichen Jugendlichen. Mathnaturwiss Dissertation, Universitat KielGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brožek J (1956) Physique and nutritional status of adult men. Hum Biol 28: 124–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durnin J VGA, Womersley J (1974) Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16–72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Findeisen DGR, Linke P-G, Pickenhain L (eds) (1976) Grundlagen der Sportmedizin. Barth, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fletscher RF (1962) The measurement of total body fat with skinfold calipers. Clin Sci 22: 333–346Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollmann W, Hettinger T (1980) Sportmedizin - Arbeits- und Trainingsgrundlagen, 2nd edn. Schattauer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jürgens HW (1979) Hautfaltenmessungen als Indikator des Gesamtkorperfettes bei jungen Mannern. Research Report BMVg InSan Nr 0476-V-073, BonnGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krämer H-J, Ulmer H-V (1981) 2-second standardization of the Harpenden caliper. Eur J Appl Physiol 46: 103–104Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nöcker J (1980) Physiologie der Leibesiibungen fur Sportlehrer, Trainer, Sportstudenten,Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rehs HJ, Berndt I, Rutenfranz J, Burmeister W (1975) Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung der Hautfaltendicke mit verschiedenen Calipern. Z Kinderhk 120: 121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tanner JB, Whitehouse RH (1955) The Harpenden skinfold caliper. Am J Phys Anthropol 13: 743–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walter GH, Zidek W (1980) Untersuchungen zur Beziehung zwischen Ergometerleistung (PWC170) und fettfreier Korpermasse. Wehrmed Mschr 24: 336–341Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiner JS, Lourie JA (1969) A guide to field methods. Oxford, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zwerger M (1981) Zur automatischen Registrierung von Hautfaltendicken mit dem Harpenden-Caliper und zur Standardisierung des Ablesezeitpunktes. Diplomarbeit, University of MainzGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zwerger M, Ulmer H-V (1980) Automatic registration with the Harpenden caliper. Pflugers Arch 384: Suppl 35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-V. Ulmer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations