Utility of a Non-Exercise VO2max Prediction Model for Designing Ramp Test Protocols

Abstract

This study investigated the validity of determining the final work rates of cycling and walking ramp-incremented maximal cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs) using a non-exercise model to predict maximal oxygen uptake VO2max and the American College of Sports Medicine ACSM's metabolic equations. The validity of using this methodology to elicit the recommended test duration of between 8 and 12 min was then evaluated. First, 83 subjects visited the laboratory once to perform a cycling (n=49) or walking (n=34) CPET to investigate the validity of the methodology. Second, 25 subjects (cycling group: n=13; walking group: n=12) performed a CPET on 2 separate days to test the reliability of CPET outcomes. Observed VO2max was 1.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) lower than predicted in the cycling CPET (P=0.001) and 1.4 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) lower in the walking CPET (P=0.001). Only one of the 133 conducted CPETs was outside the test duration range of 8-12 min. Test-retest reliability was high for all CPET outcomes, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.90 to 0.99. In conclusion, the non-exercise model is a valid and reliable method for establishing the final work rate of cycling and walking CPETs for eliciting test durations of between 8 and 12 min.

Continuous and Accumulated Bouts of Cycling Matched by Intensity and Energy Expenditure Elicit Similar Acute Blood Pressure Reductions in Prehypertensive Men

“…The ramp-incremented maximal CPET was performed as described elsewhere (11). The power output increment was individualized to elicit each participant's limit of tolerance in approximately 10 min.…”

A method for predicting peak work rate for cycle ergometer and treadmill ramp tests

“…The WRpeak prediction for the cycle ergometer in this study (mean difference between WRpred and WRpeak was 0·6 W and 95% LoA was −37·6 to 38·8 W) was favourably comparable to the study of Cunha et al . (), which used a different non‐exercise prediction model and the ACSM's metabolic equations to determine the cycle work rate, and found that the mean difference between WRpred and WRpeak was −1 W and 95% LoA was −54·1 to 52·1 W.…”

“…Subjects usually need to perform a short maximal test or a warm‐up test to predict the peak work rate before an IET, which is not convenient to implement in daily practice (Myers et al ., ; Arts et al ., ; Loe et al ., ). Recently, there was an attempt to use non‐exercise prediction of maximal to design IET protocols (Maeder et al ., ; da Silva et al ., ; Cunha et al ., ). For example, a recently published study by Cunha et al .…”

“…For example, a recently published study by Cunha et al . () used a non‐exercise model (Matthews et al ., ) and ACSM's metabolic equations (Thompson et al ., ) to determine the cycle and treadmill ramp protocol and found promising results.…”

“…Cunha et al . () used a ramp protocol with a treadmill speed of 4 km h −1 at the beginning and 6 km h −1 at the end. The average slope at the end of the exercise was high (22%).…”