Objective To compare the discrepancies among results of three commonly used laboratory direct test methods for maximal oxygen uptake(VO2max),explore their linear regression relationships,mutual predictability and comparability.Methods Using a quasi-experimental design of cluster sampling and within-group interaction design,20 male cross-country skiers were tested for VO2max using the Bruce protocol(Method 1),90-second incremental load exercise on power bicycle(Method 2),and 1-minute incremental load exercise on treadmill(Method 3),with an interval of one week.The indepen-dent and dependent variable were the three VO2max test methods and the VO2max,respectively.Results Significant differences were found in the average VO2max of the three test results,with the value mea-sured by Method 1 ranking the first,followed by that assessed by Method 3 and Method 2(P<0.05).Moreover,the frequency of individual differences in the results of the three methods showed that the VO2max of Method 1 was about 6 and 3 ml/min·kg higher than that measured by Method 2 and 3.However,at the same treadmill speed,the average blood lactate evaluated using Method 3 was higher than Method 1,and the speed reached aerobic and anaerobic thresholds about one speed unit(1 km/h)lower than Method 1.Meanwhile,linear regression analyses of the test results between Method 1 and 2,as well as Method 1 and 3 showed that both the regression models and coefficients were statis-tically significant(P<0.001),with the R-squared values of 9.25 and 9.05,respectively.Conclusion The Bruce protocol performs best in assessing the maximum value of the athlete's VO2max phase,whose results have linear regression relationships with the other two methods,and can be used for pre-dicting their results.Moreover,athletes of different events and levels can choose different VO2max test methods accordingly.Lastly,the speed and heart rate ranges corresponding to the aerobic and anaero-bic thresholds can serve as an effective and convenient method to control the training intensity.

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategies in COVID-19 patients differ from those in patients suffering from cardiogenic cardiac arrest. During CPR, both healthcare and non-healthcare workers who provide resuscitation are at risk of infection. The Working Group for Expert Consensus on Prevention and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Cardiac Arrest in COVID-19 has developed this Chinese Expert Consensus to guide clinical practice of CPR in COVID-19 patients. Main recommendations: 1) A medical team should be assigned to evaluate severe and critical COVID-19 for early monitoring of cardiac-arrest warning signs. 2) Psychological counseling and treatment are highly recommended, since sympathetic and vagal abnormalities induced by psychological stress from the COVID-19 pandemic can induce cardiac arrest. 3) Healthcare workers should wear personal protective equipment (PPE). 4) Mouth-to-mouth ventilation should be avoided on patients suspected of having or diagnosed with COVID-19. 5) Hands-only chest compression and mechanical chest compression are recommended. 6) Tracheal-intubation procedures should be optimized and tracheal-intubation strategies should be implemented early. 7) CPR should be provided for 20-30 min. 8) Various factors should be taken into consideration such as the interests of patients and family members, ethics, transmission risks, and laws and regulations governing infectious disease control. Changes in management: The following changes or modifications to CPR strategy in COVID-19 patients are proposed: 1) Healthcare workers should wear PPE. 2) Hands-only chest compression and mechanical chest compression can be implemented to reduce or avoid the spread of viruses by aerosols. 3) Both the benefits to patients and the risk of infection should be considered. 4) Hhealthcare workers should be fully aware of and trained in CPR strategies and procedures specifically for patients with COVID-19.