A comparison of practical assessment methods to determine treadmill, cycle, and elliptical ergometer V̇O₂ peak

This investigation compared estimated and predicted peak oxygen consumption (V̇O₂peak) and maximal heart rate (HR_max) among the treadmill, cycle ergometer, and elliptical ergometer. Seventeen women (mean ± SE: 21.9 ± 0.3 y) exercised to exhaustion on all modalities. American College of Sports Medicine metabolic equations were used to estimate V̇O₂peak. Digital displays on the elliptical ergometer were used to estimate V̇O₂peak. Two individual linear regression methods were used to predict V̇O₂peak: (a) 2 steady state heart rate (HR) responses up to 85% of agepredicted HR_max and (b) multiple steady state/nonsteady state HR responses up to 85% of age-predicted HR_max. Estimated V̇O₂ peakfor the treadmill (46.3 ± 1.3 ml.kg ^-1 min ^-1) and the elliptical ergometer (44.4 ± 1.0 ml.kg ^-1 min ^-1) did not differ. The cycle ergometer estimated V̇O₂peak (36.5 ± 1.0 ml.kg ^-1 min ^-1) was lower (p < 0.001) than the estimated V̇O ₂peak values for the treadmill and elliptical ergometer. Elliptical ergometer V̇O₂peak predicted from steady-state (51.4 ±.8 ml.kg ^-1.min ^-1) and steady-state/nonsteady-state (50.3 ± 2.0 ml.kg ^-1 min ^-1) models were higher than estimated elliptical ergometer V̇O₂peak, p < 0.01. HR _max, and estimates of V̇O₂peak were similar between the treadmill and elliptical ergometer; thus, crossmodal exercise prescriptions may be generated. The use of digital display estimates of submaximal oxygen uptake for the elliptical ergometer may not be an accurate method for predicting V̇O₂peak. Health-fitness professionals should use caution when utilizing submaximal elliptical ergometer digital display estimates to predict V̇O₂peak.