Use of a perceptually‐regulated test to measure maximal oxygen uptake is valid and feels better

Abstract

A maximal, perceptually-regulated exercise test (PRETmax) whereby participants control the intensity according to preset ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) may induce more positive affective responses than a conventional 'experimenter controlled' incremental ramp test (Iramp). The authors aimed to assess (1) if a PRETmax could be used to measure VO(2max) and (2) if affective responses differed between the PRETmax and Iramp. Sixteen participants (age 20.5, s=1.2 y) completed a PRETmax which required them to adjust the resistance on a recumbent cycle ergometer to correspond to prescribed RPEs of 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20 and an Iramp. Both tests ended with volitional exhaustion. Affect was recorded every minute throughout exercise using the Feeling Scale (FS). There was no difference (P>0.05) between VO(2max) measured by PRETmax (43.5, s=4.1 ml kg(-1) min(-1)) and Iramp (44.3, s=4.9 ml kg(-1) min(-1)). Participants reported feeling significantly less negative (P<0.001) throughout the PRETmax compared to Iramp (average mean difference FS = 1.4, s=0.1). The PRETmax has application in situations where the direct measurement of VO(2max) is required and the affective responses of the individual are considered to be important.

Assessment of peak oxygen uptake during handcycling: Test-retest reliability and comparison of a ramp-incremented and perceptually-regulated exercise test

“…In contrast, this study along with others [13,14,20,21] instructed participants to change the PO as often as was required in order to maintain the desired RPE and in the final stage such that exhaustion occurred at the end of the stage. This implementation of the PRET max allows true self-pacing to the end point throughout the test and has consistently been shown to produce values that agree with those obtained from RAMP [13,14,20,21].…”

“…Furthermore, participants were asked to maintain their preferred cadence for the test duration and were reminded throughout each stage of the target RPE. As with RAMP testing, all data other than cadence and RPE scale were blinded from the view of the participants in accordance with previous research [14,20–22]. In contrast to RAMP, elapsed time was also visible during PRET max as knowledge of the end point was considered important for pacing.…”

“…The original PRET max [18] consisted of the same 2-min, verbally anchored RPE stages (11, 13, 15, 17) as those applied by Eston et al [25] with the addition of RPE 20 to produce a maximal effort and freedom to change power output (PO) or speed on a moment to moment basis during each of the perceptually-regulated bouts. Other authors have used protocols with seven stages at RPE 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 20 [13] and six, 3-min stages at RPE 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20 [14]. As indicated above, these closed-loop protocols have the advantages of known duration and in allowing participants a level of autonomy to control exercise intensity whilst maintaining a fixed RPE.…”

“…Also, the small difference in reported between RAMP and PRET max in the treadmill study [17], despite reporting otherwise, did not exceed the difference which could be attributed to the measurement error of in their study. In contrast, no differences in from PRET max and RAMP have been observed when using the original [20,21] and variants of the SPV [13,14]. Methodological inconsistencies are further found in a study comparing PRET max and RAMP protocols that have changed incline and speed, respectively [16].…”

“…In these instances the protocol that altered the incline produced a significantly greater In the case of Hogg et al [16] this was the PRET max , whilst for Scheadler and Devor [19] it was RAMP. Blinding of participants offers another example of discrepancy between studies with some blinding participants to either the speed or PO during trials [14,20–22], and others not blinding participants [17,18,23]. The combination of equivocal findings with methodological and statistical analysis discrepancies make it difficult to draw firm conclusions as to the use of the PRET max for determining compared to RAMP testing.…”