Table 1.
Descriptive data related to anthropometric characteristics, 1RM- and incremental-load tests.
Table 2.
Differences in cardioventilatory and lactate responses between half-squat vs cycle-ergometer during constant-load test at lactate threshold intensity.
Fig 1.
Multiple comparisons between cycle ergometer (CYC) and half-squat (HS): (A) Oxygen uptake (VO2). (B) Heart rate (HR). δ Significant differences p < 0.05 between cycle ergometer and half-squat at each checkpoint. † Significantly different from M8.5, M13, M17.5, M22, M26.5, M31 in cycle ergometer, p < 0.01. ⍵ Significantly different from M8.5, M17.5 in cycle ergometer, p = 0.017. ⏚ Significantly different from S6, S18, S21 in HS exercise, p < 0.05. ⏆ Significantly different from S21 in HS exercise, p = 0.026.
Fig 2.
Multiple comparisons between cycle ergometer (CYC) and half-squat (HS) in blood lactate.
⏚ Significantly different from S3, S6, S9, S12, S15, S18, S21 in HS exercise, p < 0.001. † Significantly different from M4, M8.5, M13, M17.5, M22, M26.5, M31 in cycle ergometer, p < 0.01. δ Significantly different from cycle ergometer in M22/S15, M26.5/S18, M31/S21, p < 0.05. ⍵ Significantly different from M4 in cycle ergometer, p = 0.028. ⏆ Significantly different from S3 and S6 in HS exercise, p < 0.05.
Fig 3.
Differences between cycle ergometer (CYC) and half-squat (HS) in the VE/VCO2 slope and OUES.
No significant differences between both exercise modalities.
Fig 4.
Linear relationship between ventilation (VE) and carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2 slope): (A) Cycle ergometer (CYC). (B) Half-squat (HS).
Fig 5.
Relationship between oxygen uptake (VO2) and log10 VE (OUES): (A) Cycle ergometer (CYC). (B) Half-squat (HS).