A comparison of practical assessment methods to determine treadmill, cycle, and elliptical ergometer VO2 peak.

This investigation compared estimated and predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak) and maximal heart rate (HRmax) 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 VO2 peak. Digital displays on the elliptical ergometer were used to estimate VO2 peak. Two individual linear regression methods were used to predict VO2 peak: (a) 2 steady state heart rate (HR) responses up to 85% of age-predicted HRmax and (b) multiple steady state/nonsteady state HR responses up to 85% of age-predicted HRmax. Estimated VO2 peak for the treadmill (46.3 +/- 1.3 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and the elliptical ergometer (44.4 +/- 1.0 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) did not differ. The cycle ergometer estimated VO2 peak (36.5 +/- 1.0 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was lower (p < 0.001) than the estimated VO2 peak values for the treadmill and elliptical ergometer. Elliptical ergometer VO2 peak predicted from steady-state (51.4 +/- .8 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and steady-state/nonsteady-state (50.3 +/- 2.0 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) models were higher than estimated elliptical ergometer VO2 peak, p < 0.01. HRmax, and estimates of VO2 peak 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 VO2 peak. Health-fitness professionals should use caution when utilizing submaximal elliptical ergometer digital display estimates to predict VO2 peak.