Who do exercise physiologists test best - athletes or themselves

Abstract

Those who perform physiological assessments on athletes, be they called 'exercise physiologists' or 'fitness consultants', need to be critically aware of not only the benefits of testing, but particularly of the potential dangers of not faithfully reporting the error margins contained within all test procedures. This is of particular importance when using submaximal tests that attempt to predict maximum oxygen uptake, since these tests can produce extremely variable results. There is good evidence to suggest that the importance of knowing an athlete's maximal oxygen uptake should be de-emphasized, especially since a lactate variable may be more relevant to athletic performance. Although the primary use of physiological assessments is to try and help the athlete, there exists the very real possibility that poorly conducted tests and inadequate feedback to the athlete or coach could be entirely counterproductive. It is time that the fitness industry in New Zealand recognizes the potential impact these tests can have on athletes; that it takes steps to ensure that appropriate feedback is given to the athlete regarding the limitations of physiological assessments, and ensures the interests of the athlete are always given the top priority.