PreprintCited by 7Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthSports Performance and Training

Estimating maximal oxygen consumption from heart rate response to submaximal ramped treadmill test

Open access
Gonzales, Tomas I., Westgate, Kate, Hollidge, Stefanie, Lindsay, Tim, Jeon, Justin, Brage, Søren·2020·medRxiv

Abstract

The Cambridge Ramped Treadmill Test (CRTT) is an incremental, multistage exercise test (I: steady-state walk, II: walk ramped speed, III: walk ramped incline, and IV: run ramped speed on flat). It is typically deployed as a submaximal test with flexible test termination criteria, making it an attractive option for population-based studies of cardiorespiratory fitness. We conducted a study in healthy adults to test the validity of maximal oxygen consumption estimates (VO 2 max; ml O 2 ·kg -1 ·min -1 ) predicted from CRTT heart rate response using several methods: a heart rate-to-work rate linear regression method across several test termination criteria, either when a percentage of age-predicted maximal heart rate was achieved (50% through 100%) or at the end of distinct CRTT stages (II, III, and IV); and two single-point walk-test calibration methods using data from either CRTT stage I (low-point method) or stage II (high-point method). For estimates from the linear regression method, prediction bias ranged from −3.0 to −1.6 ml O 2 ·kg -1 ·min -1 and Pearson’s r ranged from 0.57 to 0.79 for endpoints at percentages of age-predicted maximal heart rate; results were similar for stages III and IV endpoints, but predictions using data only up to stage II had poorer agreement. Agreement was moderate when using the low-point (mean bias: −4.3 ml O 2 ·kg -1 ·min -1 ; Pearson’s r : 0.71) and high-point (mean bias: −3.5 ml O 2 ·kg -1 ·min -1 ; Pearson’s r : 0.69) methods. Heart rate response to the CRTT can be used to predict VO 2 max with acceptable validity in common epidemiological scenarios.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.02.18.20024489

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The submaximal treadmill VO2max estimation procedure was validated against directly measured VO2max in a subsample of Fenland Study participants, showing low bias and high correlation (r = 0.70).

    “This VO2max estimation procedure has been validated against directly measured VO2max in a subsample of Fenland Study participants (43 women; 42 men), demonstrating low bias and high correlation with directly measured VO2max (r = 0.70) [18,19].”

    From Resting heart rate is a population-level biomarker of cardiorespiratory fitness: The Fenland Study (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results and agreement table report comparisons with directly measured VO₂max, with correlations near 0.70 and modest mean underestimation. However, the Results give a final sample of 42 women and 41 men, not 43 and 42; the Participants section also says recruitment came from both Fenland Study invitations and hospital adverts, so the paper does not establish that the entire validation sample was a Fenland subsample. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Associations between RHR and fitness reported here may be influenced by residual error from the VO2max estimation process, which is dependent on reaching a percentage of age-predicted maximal heart rate.

    “Even though we have validated this approach [18], associations between RHR and fitness reported here may be influenced by residual error from the VO2max estimation process, which is dependent on reaching a percentage of age-predicted maximal heart rate.”
  • The validity of non-exercise estimation of VO2max is still much lower than what can be achieved with dynamic exercise testing.

    “However, the validity of such estimation is still much lower than what can be achieved with dynamic exercise testing [139].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonzales, T. I., Westgate, K., Hollidge, S., Lindsay, T., Jeon, J., & Brage, S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Brage, Søren
Venue
medRxiv
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-02-20
OpenAlex
W3009410442
Cited by
7
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nd
Locations
medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research ([IS-BRC-1215-20014, BRC1215-20014, MC_UU_12015/3, IS-BRC-1215)
  • Medical Research Council (IS-BRC-1215-20014, MC_UU_12015, MC_UU_12015/3, BRC-1215-20014)
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre ((BRC-1215-20014), IS-BRC-1215-20014)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
VO2max, VO2max prediction, heart rate response, cardiorespiratory fitness, submaximal exercise testing, test termination criteria, one-point calibration, prediction bias, treadmill exercise testing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review