This study aims to analyze the agreement and precision between heart rate variability thresholds (HRVT1/2) with ventilatory and lactate thresholds 1 and 2 (VT1/2 and LT1/2) on a treadmill. Thirty-four male students were recruited. Day 1 consisted of conducting a health survey, anthropometrics, and Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPx). On Day 2, after 48 h, a second incremental test was performed, the Cardiopulmonary Stepwise Exercise Test consisting of 3 min stages (CPxS), to determine VT1/2, LT1/2, and HRVT1/2. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA and effect size (η_p²) were used, followed by Sidak’s post hoc. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) and Typical Error (TE) were applied to verify the precision. Bland Altman and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were applied to confirm the agreement. HRVT1 showed different values compared to LT1 (lactate, RER, and R-R interval) and VT1 (V̇E, RER, V̇CO₂, and HR). No differences were found in threshold 2 (T2) between LT2, VT2, and HRVT2. No difference was found in speed and V̇O₂ for T1 and T2. The precision was low to T1 (CV > 12% and TE > 10%) and good to T2 (CV < 12% and TE < 10%). The agreement was good to fair in threshold 1 (VT1, LT1, HRVT1) and excellent to good in T2 (VT1, LT1, HRVT1). HRVT1 is not a valid method (low precision) when using this protocol to estimate LT1 and VT1. However, HRVT2 is a valid and noninvasive method that can estimate LT2 and VT2, showing good agreement and precision in healthy adults.

To propose a new Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test with Elastic Resistance (CPxEL) and compare the physiological responses to conventional cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPx) performed on a treadmill. In addition, we tested the reproducibility of the CPxEL. Twenty-four physically active participants completed the CPx (first session) and CPxEL twice (second and third sessions) interspersed by seven days. A treadmill protocol with increments of 1km·h-1 every minute until exhaustion was used in CPx. The CPxEL consisted of performing alternating steps back-and-forth against an elastic resistance attached to a belt and an incremental protocol with 1 stage (S) per minute following a cadence of 200 bpm controlled by a metronome in an 8-stage rubber mat. First analysis: first ventilatory threshold (VT1) occurred at 69.7% and 75.3% of maximal heart rate (HRmax) and 53.5% and 65.7% of maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2max). Second VT (VT2) occurred at 93.3% and 96.8% of the HRmax and 87.0% and 96.9% of V̇O2max for CPx and CPxEL, respectively. At exhaustion, V̇O2max, perceived exertion (BORG-CR10 and OMNI-RES EB), and test duration presented lower values for CPxEL (P < 0.05). Second analysis: VT1 occurred at warm-up (S0) (P = 0.731), VT2 occurred at S5 (P = 0.912), and the exhaustion occurred at S6 and S7 (P = 0.271) for CPxEL and retest, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for V̇O2max was 0.921 and for HRmax was 0.930. The CPxEL has good test-retest reproducibility and represents a possible and interesting add-on to determine maximal oxygen consumption, maximal heart rate, and second ventilatory threshold without using traditional ergometers.

We aimed to analyze the influence of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) on ventilatory threshold identification (VT1) using the Ventilatory Equivalents (VEq) and V-slope methods. Twenty-two male runners (32.9 ± 9.4 years) were divided into two groups: G1 - group with less cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF: VO2max 40 to 51 ml·kg-1·min-1) and G2 - higher CRF (G1; VO2max £56,4 to 72 ml·kg-1·min-1) divided by the 50th percentile. An incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test was applied to identify VT1 using VEq and V-slope methods to compare heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), and speed. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare HR, VO2, and speed (groups vs. methods). The Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d. The intraclass correlation coefficient, variation coefficient, typical error, and Bland Altman were applied to verify reliability and agreement. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between methods for G1 (VO2, HR, and speed), and Bland Altman showed good agreement (mean difference: VO2 0.35ml·kg-1·min-1; HR 2.58bpm; speed 0.33km·h-1). However, G2 presented statistical differences between methods (VO2 and speed) and a more significant mean difference (VO2 2.68ml·kg-1·min-1; HR 6.87 bpm; speed 0.88km·h-1). The small effect size was found in G1 between methods (VO2: 0.06; speed: 0.20; HR: 0.14), and small and moderate effects were found in G2 between methods (VO2: 0.39; speed: 0.43; HR: 0.51). In conclusion, runners with lower CRF have a better agreement for the V-slope and VEq methods than those with a higher CRF.

This study aims to analyze the agreement of cardiopulmonary variables between a cardiopulmonary exercise test with elastic resistance (CPxEL) and high-intensity interval exercise with elastic resistance (EL-HIIE). Methods: Twenty-two physically independent participants were recruited. Visit one consisted of conducting a health survey and anthropometric assessment. On visit two, the participants performed CPxEL. After seven days, on visit three, the participants performed EL-HIIE. The CPxEL was carried out on a rubber mat demarcated by lines representing eight stages. The test consisted of alternating back and forth steps against elastic resistance. The increments were performed at a rate of one stage per minute, following a cadence controlled by a metronome calibrated by beats per minute (bpm). The EL-HIIE was performed at the stage corresponding to an intensity of ~85% VO_2max, as determined by CPxEL. The EL-HIIE consisted of 10 × 1 min (work):1 min (passive rest), with a cadence of 200 bpm. Cardiopulmonary parameters, heart rate (HR), and oxygen consumption (VO₂) were measured during exercise. Bland–Altman was applied to analyze the agreement between the HR and VO₂ found in EL-HIIE and the values prescribed by CPxEL (~85–90% VO_2max). Results: The HRpeak and VO₂peak in the EL-HIIE showed good agreement with the VO_2CPxEL and HR_CPxEL values, showing an average difference of (−1.7 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) and (0.3 bpm). Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrate the agreement of cardiopulmonary variables between the CPxEL and the EL-HIIE. Therefore, for a more specific prescription of EL-HIIE intensity, CPxEL can be used.

After a careful appraisal, we are concerned that the article “HIIE Protocols Promote Better Acute Effects on Blood Glucose and Pressure Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes than Continuous Exercise”