ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 28 October 2021
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.739745
Edited by:
Gary W. Mack,
Brigham Young University,
United States
Reviewed by:
Filipe Dinato De Lima,
University Center of Brasilia, Brazil
Michael E. Tschakovsky,
Queen’s University, Canada
*Correspondence:
Agnieszka Danuta Jastrz ˛ebska
agnieszka.jastrzebska@awf.wroc.pl
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Exercise Physiology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Physiology
Received: 11 July 2021
Accepted: 07 October 2021
Published: 28 October 2021
Citation:
Hebisz P, Jastrz ˛ebska AD and
Hebisz R (2021) Real Assessment
of Maximum Oxygen Uptake as
a Veriﬁcation After an Incremental Test
Versus Without a Test.
Front. Physiol. 12:739745.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.739745
Real Assessment of Maximum
Oxygen Uptake as a Veriﬁcation After
an Incremental Test Versus Without a
Test
Paulina Hebisz, Agnieszka Danuta Jastrz ˛ebska* and Rafał Hebisz
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University School of Physical Education in Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
The study was conducted to compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) measured with
the incremental graded test (GXT) (VO2peak) and two tests to verify maximum oxygen
uptake, performed 15 min after the incremental test (VO2peak1) and on a separate day
(VO2peak2). The aim was to determine which of the veriﬁcation tests is more accurate
and, more generally, to validate the VO2max obtained in the incremental graded test
on cycle ergometer. The study involved 23 participants with varying levels of physical
activity. Analysis of variance showed no statistically signiﬁcant differences for repeated
measurements (F = 2.28, p = 0.118, η2 = 0.12). Bland–Altman analysis revealed
a small bias of the VO2peak1 results compared to the VO2peak (0.4 ml·min−1·kg−1)
and VO2peak2 results compared to the VO2peak (−0.76 ml·min−1·kg−1). In isolated
cases, it was observed that VO2peak1 and VO2peak2 differed by more than 5% from
VO2peak. Considering the above, it can be stated that among young people, there are
no statistically signiﬁcant differences between the values of VO2peak measured in the
following tests. However, in individual cases, the need to verify the maximum oxygen
uptake is stated, but performing a second veriﬁcation test on a separate day has no
additional beneﬁt.
Keywords: maximum oxygen uptake, VO2 plateau, physical ﬁtness, cycle ergometer, veriﬁcation phase,
incremental test
INTRODUCTION
Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is considered to be the gold standard in assessing oxygen
capacity, as it reﬂects the eﬃciency of the respiratory and circulatory system and the eﬃciency
of the muscular system in using oxygen whilst exercising (Bassett and Howley, 2000; Lucia et al.,
2001; Martino et al., 2002; Joyner and Coyle, 2008). The incremental graded test (GXT) protocol is
commonly used to assess the VO2max, which involves increasing the external load and continuing
it until the subject reaches volitional exhaustion (Beltz et al., 2016). For years, the paradigm of the
GXT was accepted and this form of VO2max testing was used. However, for several years, there
has been a discussion of whether the GXT in each case allows for an accurate measurement of
maximum oxygen uptake (Howley et al., 1995; Poole et al., 2008; Sánchez-Otero et al., 2014; Schaun,
2017). It was pointed out that subjects with no experience for maximal eﬀorts and those with low
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
1
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
motivation and low cardiorespiratory ﬁtness may interrupt the
test before reaching VO2max due to fatigue-related symptoms
(Midgley et al., 2007b; Poole and Jones, 2017).
Therefore,
new
criteria
for
the
accuracy
of
VO2max
measurements have been proposed (Howley et al., 1995;
Sánchez-Otero et al., 2014; Beltz et al., 2016; Schaun, 2017). It
has been suggested that achieving a VO2 plateau in the ﬁnal
phase of the GXT is proof that a VO2max measurement is
accurate (Howley et al., 1995). However, it has been documented
that in many subjects (both athletes and non-athletes), it
is impossible to separate the plateau phase when reaching
VO2max (Lucia et al., 2006; Schaun, 2017; Hebisz et al., 2018).
The other criteria for accurately measuring VO2max–analysis
of peak respiratory quotient, peak heart rate (HR), and
post-workout lactate concentration–have also been widely
discussed (Howley et al., 1995; Duncan et al., 1997; Beltz
et al., 2016). Nonetheless, their high inter-subject variability
may suggest that some subjects do not satisfy mentioned
criterions even if their maximum eﬀort is made, which lowers
their value. It has been also demonstrated that the criterion
of achieving a VO2 plateau in the ﬁnal phase of the GXT
frequently does not meet the criteria for HR and lactate
concentration (Poole et al., 2008). These limitations reduce
the certainty that subjects performing the GXT reach their
“true” VO2max.
Considering the doubts about the eﬀectiveness of the
above-mentioned criteria in verifying the accuracy of VO2max
measurements, constant power veriﬁcation tests were proposed
(Midgley et al., 2006; Beltz et al., 2016; Poole and Jones, 2017;
Schaun, 2017; Possamai et al., 2020). The idea is simply to
provoke the VO2 plateau through constant-load eﬀort performed
with intensities ranging from submaximal to supramaximal eﬀort
(Barker et al., 2011; Nolan et al., 2014; Poole and Jones, 2017;
Astorino and DeRevere, 2018). Usually, the veriﬁcation tests are
performed approximately 5–15 min after the incremental test
(Schaun, 2017) and last several minutes (Barker et al., 2011;
Nolan et al., 2014; Beltz et al., 2016; Schaun, 2017; Astorino and
DeRevere, 2018).
On the other hand, Possamai et al. (2020) suggests that
the test to verify the VO2max obtained in the GXT should be
performed on a diﬀerent day, assuming that the subject’s exercise
tolerance/capacity is higher then and that the peak oxygen uptake
(VO2peak) measured in a veriﬁcation test on another day are not
lower than that from a veriﬁcation test performed several minutes
after the GXT. However, in both veriﬁcation tests they used
a power output level of 100% of maximal power–as measured
in a previous incremental test–which could have contributed
to similar values of oxygen uptake being recorded in the tests.
Moreover, their results showed that the VO2peak achieved in the
veriﬁcation test performed on a separate day were closer to the
VO2peak of the GXT than that of a veriﬁcation test done several
minutes after the GXT.
More recently, in order to verify the VO2peak from the GXT,
researchers proposed performing the veriﬁcation test with a
power level exceeding the power output of the GXT, but mainly
several minutes after the GXT (Barker et al., 2011; Nolan et al.,
2014; Schaun, 2017; Astorino and DeRevere, 2018). It seems that
it would be worth using a higher load in the veriﬁcation test
performed on a separate day, as exercise tolerance is higher then.
The aim of this study was to compare the values of VO2peak
obtained from the incremental test and from two veriﬁcation
tests completed with a power output of 110% of the peak power
output reached in a previous incremental test [the ﬁrst one
was performed 15 min after the progressive test (Tver-1), whilst
the second one was performed on a separate day (Tver-2)]. It
was hypothesized that in individual cases, the veriﬁcation test
performed on a separate day may allow for higher VO2peak values
than the incremental test and the veriﬁcation test performed
several minutes after the incremental test.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The
study
involved
23
participants:
recreationally
active
individuals (n = 13, including 7 women and 6 men) and
athletes (cyclists) (n = 10, including 4 women and 6 men). Each
participant had been active recreationally or practicing sport
(cyclists) for at least 3 years. The two groups, the recreationally
active people and the athletes, were similar in regard to their
anthropometric characteristics, whereas the parameters for
physical capacity–VO2peak (p < 0.000) and power value (Pmax)
(p < 0.000) diﬀered signiﬁcantly (Table 1).
The study design was approved by the institutional review
board and was conducted in accordance with the ethical
standards established by the Declaration of Helsinki. Written
informed consent was obtained from all participants after the
study details, procedures, beneﬁts, and risks were explained.
Exercise Tests
The study consisted of three exercise tests (Figure 1). On the
ﬁrst day of the study, each participant performed an incremental
graded test (GXT) and a veriﬁcation test (Tver-1). After a 48-
h break, an additional veriﬁcation test (Tver-2) was performed,
which was only preceded by a warm-up. The tests (GXT and
Tver-1) and Tver-2 were performed at a similar time of day
(±30 min). All the tests were carried out using a Lode Excalibur
Sport electronically braked cycloergometer (Lode BV, Groningen,
Netherlands). The tests were performed in controlled laboratory
conditions at an exercise laboratory (PN-EN ISO 9001:2001
certiﬁed). One week prior to the incremental graded test, the
participants were familiarized with the protocol of the test.
Incremental Exercise Test With
Veriﬁcation Test Performed on the Same
Day
The VO2peak was determined using a continuous GXT, with a
self-selected pedal rate no lower than 60 rev/min. The test started
with a 40-W or 50-W load (for women and men, respectively),
and it was increased by 40 W or 50 W (for women and men,
respectively) every 3 min until volitional exhaustion. Heart rate
was recorded with a V800 cardiofrequencimeter (Polar, Oy,
Finland). The respiratory parameters were measured breath-by-
breath (Quark, COSMED, Milan, Italy) and averaged over 30-s
intervals. The data recording began 2 min before GXT and ended
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
2
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
TABLE 1 | Basic anthropological and physiological parameters characterizing the subjects.
All (n = 23)
Recreational active (n = 13)
Athletes (n = 10)
Females (n = 11)
Males (n = 12)
Age (years)
22.00 ± 3.79
21.23 ± 1.01
23.00 ± 5.64
21.64 ± 3.67
22.33 ± 4.03
Body height (m)
1.74 ± 0.10
1.76 ± 0.11
1.72 ± 0.08
1.67 ± 0.06
1.82 ± 0.07*
Body mass (kg)
68.50 ± 9.96
70.64 ± 11.38
65.73 ± 7.39
61.75 ± 6.92
74.69 ± 8.22*
VO2peak1 (ml·kg−1·min−1)
52.00 ± 13.31
42.62 ± 6.10
64.18 ± 9.58*
45.46 ± 8.44
57.98 ± 14.42*
Pmax (W)
288.91 ± 77.71
244.23 ± 56.26
347.00 ± 62.51*
230.64 ± 49.31
342.33 ± 57.94*
VO2peak1, the peak oxygen uptake in an incremental test; Pmax, the maximum aerobic power measured during the progressive test; data are presented as
mean ± standard deviation.
*p < 0.05 for the difference between groups.
FIGURE 1 | Scheme of visit in laboratory.
5 min after the veriﬁcation test (Tver-1). The device was calibrated
with an atmospheric air and gas mixture: 5% CO2, 16% O2, and
79% N2. Oxygen uptake (VO2), exhaled carbon dioxide (VCO2),
and minute pulmonary ventilation (VE) were measured. The
highest VO2 recorded in the GXT was taken as the VO2peak,
whilst the highest VO2 recorded in the Tver-1 was taken as the
VO2peak1.
Based on the respiratory data records from the GXT, the
ﬁrst ventilatory threshold (VT1) was determined at the point
preceding the ﬁrst non-linear increase in VE·VO2−1 without
a concomitant increase in VE·VCO2−1 equivalent; the second
ventilatory threshold (VT2) was at the point preceding the second
non-linear increase in VE·VO2−1 accompanied by an increase of
VE·VCO2−1 equivalent, according to the methodology described
by Davis et al. (1980) and Beaver et al. (1986).
The cycloergometer was controlled by a computer, which
recorded instantaneous power and exercise time. The maximum
aerobic Pmax was obtained by subtracting 0.22 W for women and
0.28 W for men for each missing second of the last performed
load. After the end of the test, the subject rested for 15 min, with
an active rest on a 20-W cycloergometer. Next, a 3-min, square-
wave Tver-1 was performed with an intensity of 110% of Pmax with
regards to Schaun (2017).
Veriﬁcation Test Performed on a
Different Day
The test was preceded by a 15-min warm-up consisting of 5 min
of exercise at an intensity corresponding to the power achieved
with the VT1, then 10 min at a power corresponding to half
the distance between the VT1 and the VT2. The warm-up was
followed by a 10-min passive break. Tver-2 was 3 min long and
was performed at an intensity of 110% of Pmax, as determined by
the results of the incremental graded test performed 2 days prior.
The recording of respiratory parameters started 1 min before the
veriﬁcation test and ended 5 min after it was completed. The
values averaged every 30 s were used in data analysis. The highest
recorded oxygen uptake (from the averaging of 30-s intervals)
was taken as the VO2peak in the veriﬁcation test performed on
a separate day (VO2peak2).
Statistical Analysis
The diﬀerences (expressed in %) between VO2peak and VO2peak1,
as well as between VO2peak were calculated for each participant.
The tolerance of measurement error was at 5% (Midgley et al.,
2007a; Romero-Fallas et al., 2012; Hall-Lopez et al., 2015). Data
normality was assessed through the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
with Lilliefors signiﬁcance correction. Bland–Altman analysis
was performed to determine the size of the diﬀerence shift
between VO2peak and VO2peak1, as well as between VO2peak
and VO2peak2. Pearson’s correlation and linear regression were
performed for comparing the results of GXT and Tver-1 or
Tver-2. STATISTICA 13.1 software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK,
United States) was used for further statistical processing of the
data. All data are reported as mean ± SD. Analysis of variance
with repeated measurements and the Scheﬀe post hoc test were
used to determine whether factors such as sex, athletic ability,
or subsequent tests aﬀected VO2peak. The results were considered
statistically signiﬁcant at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS
The GXT and Tver-2 were performed by 23 participants, while
Tver-1 was performed by 21 participants (2 participants refused
to perform this test because of perceived fatigue).
The analysis of the main eﬀects showed statistically signiﬁcant
diﬀerences in oxygen uptake for sex (F = 25.02; p = 0.000;
η2 = 0.60) and physical activity level (F = 74.24; p = 0.000;
η2 = 0.81). There were no statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences for
repeated measurements (F = 2.28, p = 0.118, η2 = 0.12) or mixed
eﬀects for repeated measurements and sex (F = 0.68, p = 0.516,
η2 = 0.04), nor for mixed eﬀects for repeated measurements and
physical activity level (F = 0.20, p = 0.820, η2 = 0.01) (Table 2).
The individual analysis showed that 2 subjects in the Tver-1
and 7 subjects in the Tver-2 had a higher VO2peak by 5% than in
the GXT (Table 3). Bland–Altman analysis (Figure 2) revealed
a small bias of the VO2peak1 results compared to the VO2peak
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
3
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
TABLE 2 | Peak oxygen uptake value in the incremental test and in the veriﬁcation tests in the entire group of subjects, as well as after dividing the group according to
sex and physical activity level.
Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) [ml·min−1·kg−1]
Progressive test (n = 23)
Veriﬁcation test 1 (n = 21)
Veriﬁcation test 2 (n = 23)
Whole group (n = 23ˆ)
51.99 ± 13.31
51.03 ± 13.73
52.75 ± 13.37
Females (n = 11ˆ)
45.46 ± 8.44
44.09 ± 7.79
45.08 ± 7.67
Males (n = 12ˆ)
57.98 ± 14.42
57.35 ± 15.19
59.78 ± 13.85
Athletes (n = 10ˆ)
64.18 ± 9.58
64.94 ± 10.30
64.52 ± 10.58
Recreationally active (n = 13)
42.62 ± 6.10
42.48 ± 6.66
43.70 ± 6.32
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
∧-21 participants completed the veriﬁcation test 1, two athletes (one woman and one man) refused to participate in this test.
TABLE 3 | The number of people who achieved a lower, higher or equal peak oxygen uptake in the veriﬁcation tests compared to the peak oxygen uptake achieved in
the progressive test.
Whole
I division
II division
Group (n = 23)
Females (n = 11)
Males (n = 12)
Athletes (n = 10)
Recreationally active (n = 13)
VO2peak < VO2peak1
2
1
1
0
2
VO2peak > VO2peak1
4
2
2
2
2
VO2peak = VO2peak1
15
7
8
6
9
VO2peak < VO2peak2
7
2
5
2
5
VO2peak > VO2peak2
3
2
1
2
1
VO2peak = VO2peak2
13
7
6
6
7
The analysis was performed taking into account the division of the study group according to sex (I) and physical activity level (II).
VO2peak, the peak oxygen uptake in the progressive test; VO2peak1, the peak oxygen uptake in the veriﬁcation test 1; VO2peak2, the peak oxygen uptake in the veriﬁcation
test 2; <, less than. . .; >, greater than. . .; =, equal. . ..
(0.4 ml·min−1·kg−1) and VO2peak2 results compared to the
VO2peak (−0.76 ml·min−1·kg−1).
The raw test records that were performed in the studies
described in this work are posted in the repository at
https://repod.icm.edu.pl/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:
10.18150/HGE2PK.
DISCUSSION
In order to assess the VO2peak, researchers traditionally use
the GXT test until exhaustion. Since the primary criterion of
VO2peak attainment–a VO2 plateau in exhaustion–is not always
reached during the GXT, some researchers have postulated
using subsequent veriﬁcation tests (Niemelä et al., 1980; Midgley
et al., 2007b; Poole and Jones, 2017). However, in the available
literature, there are contradictory suggestions as to the need
for veriﬁcation tests. There are opinions that question the
validity of performing tests to verify the VO2max obtained from
a progressive test, due to the minimal individual diﬀerences
between the results of progressive and verifying tests (Rossiter
et al., 2006; Murias et al., 2018; Brito et al., 2019). Similar
results, conﬁrmed by Bland–Altman analysis, were presented
by McGawley (2017) when he compared the VO2peak measured
in the progressive test with the VO2peak measured in a 4-min
time trial run, performed on a separate day. The data presented
herein show no diﬀerences in mean VO2peak in the GXT and
Tver-1 versus Tver-2 (Table 2). Bland–Altman analysis showed
a small bias of VO2peak1 compared to VO2peak, as well as of
VO2peak2 compared to VO2peak (Figure 2). However, several
subjects (both recreationally active people and athletes) achieved
higher VO2peak1 or VO2peak2 values than VO2peak. Therefore,
we support the postulate of Poole and Jones (2017) about the
need to perform tests verifying the values of VO2peak measured
in progressive tests.
In most available literature, VO2max
veriﬁer tests are
performed on the same day as the progressive test (Midgley
et al., 2007b; Astorino, 2009; Kirkeberg et al., 2011; Dalleck et al.,
2012; Poole and Jones, 2017; Adam et al., 2018). The factor
diﬀerentiating used procedures is the time between the tests.
Intervals of between 5 and 15 min have commonly been used
(Midgley et al., 2007b; Poole and Jones, 2017; Adam et al., 2018),
although intervals ranging from 1 to 3 min (Kirkeberg et al.,
2011) to even 60–90 min (Astorino, 2009; Dalleck et al., 2012;
Nolan et al., 2014) have been used for veriﬁcation tests performed
on the same day. Nolan et al. (2014) reported no diﬀerences in
VO2peak between veriﬁcation tests performed with 105% Pmax
after 20- and 60-min recovery periods. Thus, 20 min of recovery
may be suﬃcient for physically active subjects. As noted by
Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011), comparable VO2peak values
after an incremental test and veriﬁcation test followed by a
10-min break indicates that even shorter breaks can be used.
The results reported by Kirkeberg et al. (2011) show that even
short recovery periods of 1–3 min turned out to be suﬃcient
among physically active people. Regardless of the intervals used
between the tests, it seems that the eﬀectiveness of the VO2max
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
4
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
FIGURE 2 | Bland-Altman plot showing: (A) Individual differences between the VO2peak values attained in the incremental and VO2peak1 from Tver-1 (B) individual
differences between the VO2peak values attained in the incremental and VO2peak2 from Tver-2. Solid line show bias and dashed lines represent a 1.96 SD (standard
deviation) for difference between peak oxygen uptakes. (C) Pearson correlation between VO2peak and VO2peak1. (D) Pearson correlation between VO2peak and
VO2peak2. In (C,D) the dashed lines indicate the 5% threshold difference from VO2peak.
veriﬁcation tests we quote above was similar. Therefore, it could
be concluded that VO2peak in a veriﬁcation test seems not to
be aﬀected by the exhaustion caused by the incremental test.
Schaun (2017) also stated that the time elapsed between an
incremental test and a veriﬁcation test is not a key aspect to
achieving the veriﬁcation criterion. Attempts were also made
to perform tests to verify VO2max on a diﬀerent day than the
progressive test (Scharhag-Rosenberger et al., 2011; Possamai
et al., 2020; Sawyer et al., 2020). Possamai et al. (2020) found
that during the veriﬁcation test performed on a separate day,
the exercise capacity is greater than during the veriﬁcation test
performed several minutes after the progressive test. Such a
conclusion was formulated on the basis of a longer eﬀort time
in a veriﬁcation test performed on a separate day, compared
to a test performed several minutes after the progressive test.
However, the greater exercise capacity described by Possamai
et al. (2020) did not aﬀect the VO2peak values, which were
similar in individual tests. Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011)
also performed veriﬁcation tests on a separate day. Based on the
results of these studies, it was also considered that VO2peak in
the veriﬁcation test performed on a separate day does not diﬀer
signiﬁcantly from VO2peak from the veriﬁcation test performed
several minutes after the progressive test. However, in the studies
described above, veriﬁcation tests were preceded by a short
warm-up.
Another factor that may inﬂuence VO2peak values is the type
of warm-up used before the veriﬁcation test carried out on a
separate day. Possamai et al. (2020) preceded the veriﬁcation
test with a warm-up of 6 min and measured the power at the
lactate threshold, deﬁned as the ﬁrst sharp increase in lactate
concentration in a progressive test. An even shorter warm-up,
lasting 5 min, was used by Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011)
and Sawyer et al. (2020). In Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011)
study the warm-up was done at a speed higher than the lactate
threshold speed. Also, a warm-up in the research of Sawyer
et al. (2020) consisted of 5 min of exercise, however, at an
intensity of 50 W (men) or 30 W (women) which is lower
than those proposed by Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011).
Bishop (2003) stated that the optimal warm-up duration before
intensive eﬀorts with an average duration should be at least
10 min, which allows the subject to reach steady-state VO2. In
our own studies, the warm-up lasted 15 min, including 5 min
of VT1 eﬀort and 10 min of eﬀort measured halfway between
VT1 and VT2. We concluded that such a warm-up, performed
before the veriﬁcation test on a separate day, may allow to
obtain higher VO2peak values than in the above-cited works
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
5
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
(Scharhag-Rosenberger et al., 2011; Possamai et al., 2020; Sawyer
et al., 2020). This assumption was supported by the results of our
own previous studies (Hebisz et al., 2017), in which we also used a
long warm-up time. We then found that it is possible to achieve a
higher VO2peak value even during a series of four short sprints
(30-s each) in comparison to the progressive test. However,
analysis of variance showed no statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences
between VO2peak, VO2peak1 and VO2peak2 in the entire group
of subjects. Moreover, Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of
VO2peak1 compared to VO2peak, as well as of VO2peak2 compared
to VO2peak was neglectable. Therefore, the research procedure
we used produced similar statistical eﬀects as the research results
described by Scharhag-Rosenberger et al. (2011).
The possibility that the training level meets the VO2peak
veriﬁcation criterion was also analyzed in this study. The above-
cited studies (Scharhag-Rosenberger et al., 2011; Nolan et al.,
2014; Possamai et al., 2020) involved physically active people,
but they were not professional athletes. Only in a review, Costa
et al. (2021) stated that concordance between VO2peak level from
GXT and veriﬁcation tests is not aﬀected by the cardiorespiratory
level of participants. In the present study, we compared athletes
with recreationally active subjects. Analysis of variance showed
no mixed eﬀects on repeated measurements and level of physical
activity. Therefore, the results of the studies described in this
work support Costa et al.’s (2021) suggestion that the eﬀects
of VO2max veriﬁcation are not related to the level of eﬃciency
(cardio-respiratory level).
LIMITATIONS
In our research, we compared VO2peak values achieved by
cyclists and amateurs. In this way, our research complements
the knowledge about the eﬀects of veriﬁcation tests, because so
far there has been little information in the literature about the
results of veriﬁcation tests performed by athletes. On the other
hand, performing analyses on a group of respondents consisting
of cyclists and amateurs is a factor limiting the certainty of
our conclusions, because athletes and amateurs are characterized
by a diﬀerent level of physical performance (muscular power,
VO2peak, VO2max). Diﬀerent levels of exercise tolerance in our
studies may aﬀect the high variability of the obtained results and
thus may aﬀect the results of statistical analyses.
The second factor limiting the certainty of our conclusions
is the way the subjects are prepared for the veriﬁcation test
performed on a separate day. After warming up, and before the
veriﬁcation test, we used a passive break of 15 min. We decided
that this way of preparing for the test is good, because in the
literature there are suggestions that the type of break (active or
passive) before a few minutes and intense eﬀorts does not aﬀect
exercise capacity (McAinch et al., 2004; Fennell and Hopker,
2021). In addition, vasodilation of muscle vessels and the activity
of histamine H1 and H2 receptors is high even for 90 min after
exercise (Luttrell and Halliwill, 2017). However, the use of a
passive break before the veriﬁcation test performed on a separate
day may have resulted in high variability of VO2peak–VO2peak2.
CONCLUSION
Among young people, there were no statistically signiﬁcant
diﬀerences between VO2peak measured in the progressive test
and VO2peak measured in the veriﬁcation tests (performed
15 min after the progressive test and performed on a separate
day), in general. There are also no diﬀerences in peak oxygen
consumption between the progressive test and the veriﬁcation
tests after dividing the group into athletes and recreationally
active individuals in any of the above-mentioned groups. In
individual cases, the need to verify the maximum oxygen uptake
is stated, but performing a second veriﬁcation test on a separate
day does not bring additional beneﬁts.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online
repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and
accession number(s) can be found below: https://repod.icm.edu.
pl/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.18150/HGE2PK.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
and approved by the Senate Research Ethics Committee at
University School of Physical Education in Wrocław. The
patients/participants provided their written informed consent to
participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
PH contributed to the study design and data collection, and
drafted the manuscript. AJ contributed to the data collection and
made the critical revisions to the manuscript. RH contributed to
the study design and data analysis, and drafted the manuscript.
All authors discussed the results, commented and edited the
manuscript at all stages, approved the ﬁnal version and agreed
to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the University School of Physical
Education in Wrocław under grant number PN/BK/2020/07.
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
6
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
REFERENCES
Adam, J., Causer, A. J., Shute, J. K., Cummings, M. H., Shepherd, A. I., Bright, V.,
et al. (2018). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing with supramaximal veriﬁcation
produces a safe and valid assessment of VO2max in people with cystic
ﬁbrosis: a retrospective analysis. J. Appl. Physiol. 125, 1277–1283. doi: 10.1152/
japplphysiol.00454.2018
Astorino, T. A. (2009). Alterations in VO2max and the VO2 plateau with
manipulation of sampling interval. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging. 29, 60–7.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2008.00835.x
Astorino, T. A., and DeRevere, J. (2018). Eﬃcacy of constant load veriﬁcation
testing to conﬁrm VO2 max attainment. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 38,
703–709. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12474
Barker, A. R., Williams, C. A., Jones, A. M., and Armstrong, N. (2011). Establishing
maximal oxygen uptake in young people during a ramp cycle test to exhaustion.
Br. J. Sports Med. 45, 498–503. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.063180
Bassett, D. R., and Howley, E. T. (2000). Limiting factors for maximum oxygen
uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32,
70–84.
Beaver, W. L., Wasserman, K., and Whipp, B. J. (1986). A new method for detecting
anaerobic threshold by gas exchange. J. Appl. Physiol. 60, 2020–2027. doi: 10.
1152/jappl.1986.60.6.2020
Beltz, N. M., Gibson, A. L., Janot, J. M., Kravitz, L., Mermier, C. M., and
Dalleck, L. C. (2016). Graded exercise testing protocols for the determination of
VO2max: historical perspectives, progress, and future considerations. J. Sports
Med. 2016:3968393. doi: 10.1155/2016/3968393
Bishop, D. (2003). Warm up II: performance changes following active warm up and
how to structure the warm up. Sports Med. 33, 483–498. doi: 10.2165/00007256-
200333070-00002
Brito, J., Fernandes, L., Rebelo, A., Krustrup, P., Silva, G., and Oliveira, J.
(2019). Heart rate kinetics response of pre-pubertal children during the Yo-
Yo intermittent endurance test—level 1. Sports 7:65. doi: 10.3390/sports70
30065
Costa, V. A. B., Midgley, A. W., Carroll, S., Astorino, T. A., de Paula, T., Farinatti,
P., et al. (2021). Is a veriﬁcation phase useful for conﬁrming maximal oxygen
uptake in apparently healthy adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PLoS One 16:e0247057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247057
Dalleck, L. C., Astorino, T. A., Erickson, R. M., McCarthy, C. M., Beadell, A. A., and
Botten, B. H. (2012). Suitability of veriﬁcation testing to conﬁrm attainment
of VO2max in middle-aged and older adults. Res. Sports Med. 20, 118–128.
doi: 10.1080/15438627.2012.660825
Davis, J. A., Whipp, B. J., and Wasserman, K. (1980). The relation of ventilation
to metabolic rate during moderate exercise in man. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup.
Physiol. 44, 97–108. doi: 10.1007/BF00421087
Duncan, G. E., Howley, E. T., and Johnson, B. N. (1997). Applicability of VO2max
criteria: discontinuous versus continuous protocols. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29,
273–278. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199702000-00017
Fennell, C. R. J., and Hopker, J. G. (2021). The acute physiological and perceptual
eﬀects of recovery interval intensity during cycling-based high-intensity
interval training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 121, 425–434. doi: 10.1007/s00421-020-
04535-x
Hall-Lopez, J. A., Ochoa-Martinez, P. Y., Moncada-Jimenez, J., Mendez, M. A. O.,
Garcia, I. M., and Garcia, M. A. M. (2015). Reliability of the maximal oxygen
uptake following two consecutive trials by indirect calorimetry. Nutr. Hosp. 31,
1726–1732. doi: 10.3305/nh.2015.31.4.8487
Hebisz, P., Hebisz, R., Borkowski, J., and Zato´n, M. (2018). Time of VO2max
plateau and postexercise oxygen consumption during incremental exercise
testing in young mountain bike and road cyclists. Physiol. Res. 67,
711–719.
Hebisz, R., Hebisz, P., Zato´n, M., and Michalik, K. (2017). Peak oxygen uptake in a
sprint interval testing protocol vs. maximal oxygen uptake in an incremental
testing protocol and their relationship with cross-country mountain biking
performance. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 42, 371–376. doi: 10.1139/apnm-
2016-0362
Howley, E. T., Bassett, D. R., and Welch, H. G. (1995). Criteria for maximal oxygen
uptake: review and commentary. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27, 1292–1301.
Joyner, M. J., and Coyle, E. F. (2008). Endurance exercise performance: the
physiology of champions. J. Physiol. 586, 35–44.
Kirkeberg, J. M., Dalleck, L. C., Kamphoﬀ, C. S., and Pettitt, R. W. (2011). Validity
of 3 protocols for verifying VO2max. Int. J. Sports Med. 32, 266–270. doi:
10.1055/s-0030-1269914
Lucia, A., Hoyos, J., and Chicharro, J. L. (2001). Physiology of professional road
cycling. Sports Med. 31, 325–337.
Lucia, A., Rabadan, M., Hoyos, J., Hernandez-Capilla, M., Perez, M., San Juan,
A. F., et al. (2006). Frequency of the VO2max plateau phenomenon in world-
class cyclists. Int. J. Sports Med. 27, 984–992. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-923833
Luttrell, M. J., and Halliwill, J. R. (2017). The intriguing role of histamine in exercise
responses. Exerc. Sport. Sci. Rev. 45, 16–23. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000093
Martino, M., Gledhill, N., and Jamnik, V. (2002). High VO2max with no history
of training is primarily due to high blood volume. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34,
966–971.
McAinch, A. J., Febbraio, M. A., Parkin, J. M., Zhao, S., Tangalakis, K., Stojanovska,
L., et al. (2004). Eﬀect of active versus passive recovery on metabolism and
performance during subsequent exercise. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 14,
185–196. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.14.2.185
McGawley, K. (2017). The reliability and validity of a four-minute running time-
trial in assessing VO2max and performance. Front. Physiol. 8:270. doi: 10.3389/
fphys.2017.00270
Midgley, A. W., McNaughton, L. R., and Carroll, S. (2006). Veriﬁcation phase as
a useful tool in the determination of the maximal oxygen uptake of distance
runners. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 31, 541–548.
Midgley, A. W., McNaughton, L. R., and Carroll, S. (2007a). Eﬀect of VO2 time-
averaging interval on reproducibility of VO2max in healthy athletic subjects.
Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 27, 122–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2007.
00725.x
Midgley, A. W., McNaughton, L. R., Polman, R., and Marchant, D. (2007b).
Criteria for determination of maximal oxygen uptake: a brief critique and
recommendations for future research. Sports Med. 37, 1019–1028. doi: 10.2165/
00007256-200737120-00002
Murias, J. M., Pogliaghi, S., and Paterson, D. H. (2018). Measurement of a true
VO2max during a ramp incremental test is not conﬁrmed by a veriﬁcation
phase. Front. Physiol. 9:143. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00143
Niemelä, K., Palatsi, I., Linnaluoto, M., and Takkunen, J. (1980). Criteria for
maximum oxygen uptake in progressive bicycle tests. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
Occup. Physiol. 44, 51–59. doi: 10.1007/BF00421763
Nolan, P. B., Beaven, M. L., and Dalleck, L. (2014). Comparison of intensities and
rest periods for VO2max veriﬁcation testing procedures. Int. J. Sports Med. 35,
1024–1029. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367065
Poole, D. C., and Jones, A. M. (2017). Measurement of the maximum oxygen
uptake ˙VO2max: ˙VO2peak is no longer acceptable. J. Appl. Physiol. 122, 997–
1002. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01063.2016
Poole, D. C., Wilkerson, D. P., and Jones, A. M. (2008). Validity of criteria for
establishing maximal O2 uptake during ramp exercise test. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
102, 403–410. doi: 10.1007/s00421-007-0596-3
Possamai, L. T., Campos, F. S., Salvador, P. C., de Aguiar, R. A., Guglielmo, L. G.,
de Lucas, R. D., et al. (2020). Similar maximal oxygen uptake assessment from a
step cycling incremental test and veriﬁcation tests on the same or diﬀerent day.
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 45, 357–361. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0405
Romero-Fallas, O., Soto-Arias, M., and Moncada-Jimenze, J. (2012). Maximal
oxygen consumption in college students is reliable following four consecutive
trials. J. Phys. Edu. Sport 12, 476–481. doi: 10.7522/jpes.2012.04069
Rossiter, H. B., Kowalchuk, J. M., and Whipp, B. J. (2006). A test to establish
maximum O2 uptake despite no plateau in the O2 uptake response to ramp
incremental exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 100, 764–770. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.
00932.2005
Sánchez-Otero, T., Iglesias-Soler, E., Boullosa, D. A., and Tuimil, J. L. (2014).
Veriﬁcation criteria for the determination of VO2max in the ﬁeld. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 28:35443551. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000576
Sawyer, B. J., McMahon, N., Thornhill, K. L., Baughman, B. R., Mahoney,
J. M., Pattison, K. L., et al. (2020). Supra-versus submaximal cycle ergometer
veriﬁcation of VO2max in males and females. Sports 8:163. doi: 10.3390/
sports8120163
Scharhag-Rosenberger, F., Carlsohn, A., Cassel, M., Mayer, F., and Scharhag, J.
(2011). How to test maximal oxygen uptake: a study on timing and testing
procedure of a supramaximal veriﬁcation test. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 36,
153–160. doi: 10.1139/H10-099
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
7
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745
Hebisz et al.
Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake
Schaun, G. Z. (2017). The maximal oxygen uptake veriﬁcation phase: a light at the
end of the tunnel? Sports Med. Open 3:44. doi: 10.1186/s40798-017-0112-1
Conﬂict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or ﬁnancial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conﬂict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aﬃliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2021 Hebisz, Jastrz˛ebska and Hebisz. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
8
October 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 739745

Real Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake as a Verification After an Incremental Test Versus Without a Test.
Hebisz, Paulina,Jastrzębska, Agnieszka Danuta,Hebisz, Rafał