Erschienen in:
27.03.2017 | Letter to the Editor
Inconsistent approach to evaluating studies and selective interpretation of data reveals lack of objectivity and undermines repeated attempts to discredit SPV
verfasst von:
Lauren A. Jenkins, Alexis R. Mauger, James G. Hopker
Erschienen in:
European Journal of Applied Physiology
|
Ausgabe 5/2017
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Excerpt
We welcome Eston and Esterman, and Poole’s continued interest in studies exploring the self-paced \(\dot{V}{\text{O}}\) 2max test (SPV), and in particular the work published by our group. It is, however, disappointing that Eston continues to view the area of \(\dot{V}{\text{O}}\) 2max testing and relevant science around it as a closed question and uses selective evidence and phrasing to uphold this. In contrast, we believe that there is much more research to be done and many questions to be answered in this area, and have always tried to present evidence and select phrasing that represents the complex and developmental nature of this topic. …