Evaluation of Alternative Tests for Measuring Vo2max Compared to the Gold Standard CPET Treadmill Test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69760/lumin.2026001008Keywords:
Astrand test, Chester step test, CPET treadmill, exercise physiology, submaximal testing, VO2maxAbstract
Accurate assessment of the body's oxygen consumption is essential for the effective management of endurance in athletes. Peak oxygen uptake (VO₂max) remains the primary indicator for evaluating aerobic capacity and exercise efficiency. Although the gold standard for measuring VO₂max is the Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) on a treadmill, it is resource-intensive, time-consuming, and requires precise calibration, making it less accessible in many settings.
This study aims to evaluate alternative VO₂max testing protocols—namely, the CPET velo test, Astrand cycle ergometer test, Chester Step Test, and Submaximal Cycle Ergometry—with a focus on practicality, efficiency, and reliability. The objective is to determine whether these alternatives can offer comparable accuracy to CPET while being easier and more cost-effective to implement.
A mixed-method research design was applied, combining experimental procedures and statistical regression analysis. Five participants with diverse physical activity backgrounds completed various tests, although some data was excluded due to technical limitations. Results indicated that none of the alternative tests consistently matched the CPET treadmill outcomes. The Astrand test showed identical VO₂max values in one participant, but significant discrepancies were observed in others.
The findings confirm that the CPET treadmill test remains the most valid and reliable method for measuring VO₂max. While alternative submaximal tests may serve in general fitness assessments, they lack the precision required for high-stakes evaluation. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of considering participants' lifestyle and activity familiarity when selecting appropriate testing protocols. Future research should further explore hybrid models that balance scientific rigor with practical applicability.
References
Beijst, C., Schep, G., van Breda, E., van Wijn, P. F., & van Pul, C. (2013). Accuracy and precision of CPET equipment: A comparison of breath-by-breath and mixing chamber systems. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 37(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2012.733057
Forbregd, T. R., Aloyseus, M. A., Berg, A., & Greve, G. (2019). Cardiopulmonary capacity in children during exercise testing: The differences between treadmill and upright and supine cycle ergometry. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01440
George, J., Vehrs, P., Babcock, G., Etchie, M., Chinevere, T., & Fellingham, G. (2000). A modified submaximal cycle ergometer test designed to predict treadmill VO2max. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 4(4), 229–243.
Herdy, A. H., Ritt, L. E., Stein, R., Araújo, C. G., Milani, M., Meneghelo, R. S., Ferraz, A. S., Hossri, C., Almeida, A. E., Fernandes-Silva, M. M., & Serra, S. M. (2016). Cardiopulmonary exercise test: Background, applicability and interpretation. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 107(5), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.5935/abc.20160171
Legge, B. J., & Banister, E. W. (1986). The Astrand-Ryhming nomogram revisited. Journal of Applied Physiology, 61(3), 1203–1209. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1986.61.3.1203
Löllgen, H., & Leyk, D. (2018). Exercise testing in sports medicine. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 115(24), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2018.0409
Macfarlane, D. J., & Wong, P. (2012). Validity, reliability and stability of the portable Cortex Metamax 3B gas analysis system. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(7), 2539–2547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2230-7
Millet, G. P., Vleck, V. E., & Bentley, D. J. (2009). Physiological differences between cycling and running: Lessons from triathletes. Sports Medicine, 39(3), 179–206. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200939030-00002
Reed, J. L., Cotie, L. M., Cole, C. A., Harris, J., Moran, B., Scott, K., Terada, T., & Pipe, A. L. (2020). Submaximal exercise testing in cardiovascular rehabilitation settings (BEST Study). Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01731
Siconolfi, S. F., Cullinane, E. M., Carleton, R. A., & Thompson, P. D. (1982). Assessing VO2max in epidemiologic studies: Modification of the Astrand-Ryhming test. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14(5), 335–338.
Sloth, M., Sloth, D., Overgaard, K., & Dalgas, U. (2013). Effects of sprint interval training on VO2max and aerobic exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(6), e341–e352. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12092
Strasser, B., & Burtscher, M. (2018). Survival of the fittest: VO2max, a key predictor of longevity. Frontiers in Bioscience, 23, 1505–1516. https://doi.org/10.2741/4657
Sykes, K., & Roberts, A. (2004). The Chester step test—a simple yet effective tool for the prediction of aerobic capacity. Physiotherapy, 90(4), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2004.03.008
Tran, D. (2018). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing. In T. J. Wang (Ed.), Methods in Molecular Biology (Vol. 1735, pp. 285–295). Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7614-0_18
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Luminis Applied Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
