International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2015, 10, 172-177

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2014-0041
© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

The Self-Paced VO2max Test to Assess Maximal Oxygen Uptake

in Highly Trained Runners
James S. Hogg, James G. Hopker, and Alexis R. Mauger

Purpose: The novel self-paced maximal-oxygen-uptake (VO2max) test (SPV) may be a more suitable alternative to traditional
maximal tests for elite athletes due to the ability to self-regulate pace. This study aimed to examine whether the SPV can be
administered on a motorized treadmill. Methods: Fourteen highly trained male distance runners performed a standard graded
exercise test (GXT), an incline-based SPV (SPVincline), and a speed-based SPV (SPVspeed). The GXT included a plateau-verification
stage. Both SPV protocols included 5 × 2-min stages (and a plateau-verification stage) and allowed for self-pacing based on fixed
increments of rating of perceived exertion: 11, 13, 15, 17, and 20. The participants varied their speed and incline on the treadmill
by moving between different marked zones in which the tester would then adjust the intensity. Results: There was no significant
difference (P = .319, ES = 0.21) in the VO2max achieved in the SPVspeed (67.6 ± 3.6 mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 65.6–69.7 mL
· kg–1 · min–1) compared with that achieved in the GXT (68.6 ± 6.0 mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 65.1–72.1 mL · kg–1 · min–1).
Participants achieved a significantly higher VO2max in the SPVincline (70.6 ± 4.3 mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 68.1–73.0 mL · kg–1
· min–1) than in either the GXT (P = .027, ES = 0.39) or SPVspeed (P = .001, ES = 0.76). Conclusions: The SPVspeed protocol
produces VO2max values similar to those obtained in the GXT and may represent a more appropriate and athlete-friendly test
that is more oriented toward the variable speed found in competitive sport.

Keywords: RPE, aerobic capacity, pacing, treadmill, incremental

Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) is defined as the high-
est rate at which oxygen can be taken in and used by the body during
severe exercise.1 This is typically measured through a maximal
exercise test to exhaustion where speed or power output consistently
increases over time until voluntary exhaustion. Although VO2max
is considered the single most-administered test in the exercise
sciences,2 recent questions over the design of the test that limit its
relevance to actual exercise performance have been raised. Bailey
et al2 have suggested that traditional methods that use a fixed
progressive exercise modality do not best reflect the challenges of
middle-distance athletics, where effective pacing is strongly linked
to the race outcome. Noakes3 expressed 3 main concerns regarding
fixed progressive VO2max protocols: First, the expected duration
of the test is unknown to the participant when it begins, which
is a foreign concept in most sports. Second, the fixed and forced
progressive intensity of the test is unnatural in most forms of exer-
cise. Finally, due to the test being open ended, it is only terminated
when the participant decides to end it through voluntary exhaus-
tion, which makes it highly subjective and highlights the issue of
other psychological factors. Furthermore, the validity of the GXT
producing a true VO2max has also been questioned, with several
studies suggesting that traditional testing methods may produce
submaximal VO2 values.4–6
Mauger and Sculthorpe7 designed a closed-loop maximal-
exertion cycling test in which intensity is clamped using the 6 to 20
rating of perceived exertion (RPE),8 as opposed to fixed increases in
power output. The test consisted of 5 × 2-minute continuous stages,
and participants were allowed to vary their work rate throughout
The authors are with the School of Sport & Exercise Sciences, University
of Kent, Chatham, UK. Address author correspondence to Alexis Mauger
at Lex.Mauger@gmail.com.
the test to match the required RPE at each stage. The 5 stages were
made up of RPE ratings of 11, 13, 15, and 17, with the final stage
being a maximal effort of 20, thus ensuring that the participant
would always be taken to a maximal effort.9 Supplementary to the
practical implications of the protocol, the authors also found that the
self-paced VO2max test (SPV) produced higher VO2max values than
those achieved in the GXT (37 ± 8 mL · kg–1 · min–1 vs 40 ± 10 mL
· kg–1 · min–1) in an untrained population. This was despite maximal
VO2 values in the SPV being produced when power output was
instead submaximal, suggesting that in traditional testing methods
participants may not always achieve a “true” VO2max.4 In contrast,
Chidnok et al10 compared VO2 responses between a cycling GXT
and SPV but found no significant difference in VO2max between the
protocols. However, those authors used a different SPV protocol
than that of Mauger and Sculthorpe,7 which may explain the dif-
fering findings.
Mauger et al5 recently implemented the SPV on a nonmotorized
treadmill, thus allowing for self-pacing. However, speeds achieved
were significantly lower, possibly as a result of nonmotorized tread-
mills producing lower running speeds due to high belt friction.11
Achieving higher running speeds would be easier on a motorized
treadmill, but self-pacing may be more difficult due to its requiring
conscious decision making and intentional action by the participant
to vary pace. However, self-paced running tests have been shown
to be achievable on a motorized treadmill.12 Mauger and Scult-
horpe7 also found that peak power-output values were significantly
higher in the SPV than in the GXT. This may have implications in
a running-based VO2max protocol, as velocity at VO2max (vVO2max)
has been shown to convey valuable information when analyzing
running performances from 1500 m to the marathon.13 Thus, cal-
culating an athlete’s vVO2max correctly is vital, as improvements in
endurance performance for highly trained athletes are most likely
to be achieved mainly through high-intensity interval training,14

172

where vVO2max can be used to prescribe training speeds. Therefore,
this study sought to investigate whether an SPV protocol could be
successfully administered on a motorized treadmill, as this could
provide an improved performance-oriented test for trained athletes
in running-based sports.
Methodology
Participants
Fourteen well-trained, male, middle- to long-distance runners (mean
+ SD age 28 ± 5 y, mass 71.0 ± 7.1 kg, height 175 ± 5 cm), well
familiarized with treadmill running and VO2max testing, volunteered
to participate in this study. The study was conducted with approval
of the ethics committee of the School of Sport & Exercise Sciences
at the University of Kent. All participants who volunteered read
and signed a form of written informed consent before participation
commenced.
Exercise Tests
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/22/16, Volume 10, Article Number 2
All participants performed a standard GXT, incline-based SPV
(SPVincline), and speed-based SPV (SPVspeed) in a randomized and
counterbalanced order, 2 to 7 days apart and at the same time of
day (± 2 h). Before each test, they were instructed to maintain
similar eating habits, abstain from alcohol (24 h) and caffeine (8
h), and to avoid exhaustive or vigorous exercise (48 h). These
measures were verbally verified by the experimenter. At the
onset of each testing session participants performed a warm-up
of their choosing on the motorized treadmill (HP Cosmos Saturn
Treadmill, HP Cosmos, Nussdorf-Traunstein, Germany), which
was kept the same for all subsequent tests. After completion of
the warm-up, participants performed a GXT, SPVincline, or SPVspeed
in which VO2 (Cortex Metalyzer 3B; Cortex, Lepzig, Germany)
and heart rate (Polar heart-rate chest strap T31, Polar Electro Inc,
New Hyde Park, NY, USA) were recorded for the duration of the
testing protocol. The online gas-analysis system was calibrated
before every test in accordance with the manufacturer’s guide-
lines. In the GXT, 6 to 20 RPE8 was recorded 15 seconds before
the end of each stage.
Graded Exercise Test
The GXT was completed with a fixed gradient of 3%, as protocols
that incorporate an increased gradient have been shown to elicit
greater muscle recruitment, and thus higher VO2max values, than
flat-gradient protocols.15 The test commenced at a submaximal
speed, gauged by the experimenter and subject, to help bring
about volitional exhaustion in the recommended time of 8 to 12
minutes (the optimal time to elicit the highest VO2),16,17 although
durations above and below this have still been shown to be accu-
rate.18 Speed was increased by 1 km/h every 2 minutes (to keep
stage duration consistent between tests and because 2-min stages
are considered the most economical in terms of oxygen require-
ments19), and the test was terminated when participants reached
volitional exhaustion. After test completion, participants received
10 minutes of rest (consisting of walking around the laboratory
and stretching) followed by a plateau-verification stage,20 where
speed was gradually increased over 30 seconds up to a speed
equivalent to 1 stage higher than the final stage achieved in
the GXT. All previously described cardiorespiratory measures
were recorded during this stage, and participants continued until
Motorized Treadmill Self-Paced Test   173
volitional exhaustion. Verbal encouragement was given for both
the GXT and plateau verification.
Self-Paced VO2max Tests
To allow for continuous pacing throughout the protocol, and so
participants did not have to manually adjust their speed, 3 zones
were marked out on the treadmill. The treadmill belt measured
2.5 m in length. The front portion of the treadmill represented an
increase in intensity (speed or incline), the middle section repre-
sented no change in intensity, and the back portion of the treadmill
represented a reduction in intensity. By the participant’s running
in either the front or back zone, the experimenter would adjust the
treadmill speed or gradient to ensure that the participant returned
to the middle zone. Changes in speed and incline were recorded
by video camera, and changes were subsequently averaged over 30
seconds and 5 seconds.
Participants were informed about the self-pacing zones before
the warm-up and then practiced using the zones after completing
their individualized warm-up. The test did not start until the partici-
pants stated they understood the zone system. Familiarization with
the RPE8 scale and how to vary speed according to a fixed RPE was
provided via verbal explanation before the warm-up, with specific
emphasis given to considering the RPE for each given moment, as
opposed to viewing each stage as a 2-minute effort at a particular
RPE. This was to encourage free-flowing pace and avoid partici-
pants’ staying at the same speed for 2-minute blocks. Both SPV
protocols consisted of 5 × 2-minute continuous stages with RPE
increments of 11, 13, 15, 17, and 20.7 The RPE scale remained vis-
ible throughout the test, and participants were consistently reminded
to vary their intensity to suit the particular RPE in each given stage.
Consequently, on the final stage (8–10 min), where RPE 20 “maxi-
mal effort” was required, participants were instructed to perform a
maximal effort with no regard to pacing themselves for 2 minutes9
or saving energy for a final effort at the end of the stage.
SPVincline Protocol
The SPVincline protocol commenced at a gradient of 3%, with speed
varying for the first stage and incline remaining at 3%. At the
end of the first stage, gradient then became the variable instead
of speed (which was fixed) for the middle 3 stages (3–8 min). At
the end of the penultimate stage, incline would then be fixed, with
speed once again changing until the end of the stage and the test.
The experimenter would adjust the speed and incline accordingly
based on the participant’s positioning on the treadmill throughout
the test with speed/incline able to increase or decrease depending
on the individual’s positioning. After the SPVincline, participants
had a 10-minute rest followed by a verification stage. During the
verification, participants ran at the speed halfway between their peak
speed from the SPVincline and their predicted verification-stage speed
of the GXT protocol. Speed variations for the first and final stages
were chosen to avoid the participant’s facing a low speed with a
high gradient, as this may result in a loss of running efficiency and/
or premature muscle fatigue.21
SPVspeed Protocol
For the SPVspeed, speed would change, with the gradient remaining
at 3% throughout the test. After the SPVspeed, participants had a
10-minute rest followed by a verification stage. During the verifica-
tion, participants ran at the speed halfway between their peak speed
from the SPVspeed and their predicted ­stage speed of the GXT protocol.
 174  Hogg, Hopker, and Mauger
VO2max Determination
Averaging of VO2 was performed over both 5-second and 30-second
time frames.1,22 A plateau in VO2 during the GXT was accepted if
the change in VO2 during the highest 30-second averages achieved
in the final 2 stages of the test were less than half of the normal
stage-to-stage difference in VO2 during the initial linear parts of the
test for each subject.4 As an ancillary method to verify attainment
of VO2max, secondary criteria were accepted when 2 of the follow-
ing were attained23: heart rate within 10 beats/min of age-predicted
maximum, respiratory-exchange ratio ≥1.1, and RPE ≥17. A VO2max
in the SPV protocols was defined as the highest VO2 averaged for
>30 seconds.5,7
Statistical Analysis
All data are presented as mean ± SD. VO2 data were checked for
normality. A 1-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used
to examine maximal value differences between protocols, with
planned a priori paired t tests used to identify where statistical
differences lay. Partial eta-squared (ηp2) and Cohen d were used to
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/22/16, Volume 10, Article Number 2
report effect sizes, and statistical significance was accepted when
P < .05. A Bland and Altman 95% limits-of-agreement (LoA)
analysis24 quantified the agreement (bias ± random error [1.96 ×
SD]) between the measured VO2max from each test. In accordance
with recommendations for conducting LoA analysis, the data were
checked for heteroscedastic error by conducting correlation analysis
on the measurement error and the mean of the GXT and SPV VO2max
scores. A Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient was car-
ried out between the mean VO2 values. Oxygen cost of breathing for
each protocol was calculated using ΔVO2/ΔVE (VE indicates minute
ventilation), as performed by Vella et al.25 All statistical tests were
completed using SPSS version 19.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).
Figure 1 — Differences in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) between the graded exercise test (GXT), speed-based self-paced VO2max test (SPVsp), and
incline-based self-paced VO2max test (SPVinc) for all participants. The thick black line represents the mean difference. Of the 14 participants, 9 achieved
their highest VO2max in the SPVinc, 3 in the GXT, and 2 in the SPVsp.
Results
VO2 data were checked and confirmed to be normally distributed.
The average stage-to-stage difference in VO2 for all participants
was calculated as 230 ± 67 mL/min, so that a plateau phenomenon
was defined as a change in VO2 ≤115 ± 34 mL/min (or an average
of 1.6 mL · kg–1 · min–1, considering the average body mass of the
participants) between the 2 final stages of the test. A VO2 plateau
was observed in all but 3 of the participants in the GXT. Of these
3 participants, 1 still achieved a higher VO2max in the GXT than in
the verification stage and the other 2 fulfilled ≥2 secondary criteria
for achieving VO2max. There was a significant difference in VO2max
between the 3 protocols (Figure 1) (F2,26 = 5.7, P = .009, ηp2 =
0.31); planned a priori paired-samples t tests revealed no significant
difference in the VO2max achieved between the SPVspeed (67.6 ± 3.6
mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 65.6 to 69.7 mL · kg–1 · min–1) and the
GXT (68.6 ± 6.0 mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 65.1 to 72.1 mL · kg–1 ·
min–1). However, participants achieved a significantly higher VO2max
in the SPVincline (70.6 ± 4.3 mL · kg–1 · min–1, 95%CI = 68.1 to 73.0
mL · kg–1 · min–1) than in the GXT (t13 = 2.4, P = .027, ES = 0.47)
and SPVspeed (t13 = 4.1, P = .01, ES = 0.76).
Figure 2 shows a representative subject’s VO2 and speed/power
for all 3 protocols. No significant differences (t13 = 1.2, P = .246)
were observed between VO2max achieved in the GXT and the subse-
quent verification bout (68.6 ± 6.0 vs 67.9 ± 6.8 mL · kg–1 · min–1,
respectively). Nine participants achieved their highest VO2max in the
SPVincline, with 3 achieving it in the GXT and 2 in the SPVspeed. No
significant difference was found between vVO2max from the GXT
and the SPVspeed, although peak speeds were significantly higher (t13
= 4.3, P = .001, ES = 1.17) in the SPVspeed than in the GXT (19.3
± 1.7 vs 17.6 ± 1.2 km/h). There was a significant difference in the
breathing cost of VO2 calculated from the GXT (28.2 ± 2.8 mL/min)
compared with both the SPVspeed (26.4 ± 2.8 mL/min) (P = .017) and
 Motorized Treadmill Self-Paced Test   175
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/22/16, Volume 10, Article Number 2

Figure 2 — Oxygen uptake (VO2) and speed or power (for the incline-based self-paced VO2max test [SPVinc]) response for all 3 protocols (and verifica-
tion stage) for a representative subject. Note that a VO2 plateau was achieved in all tests, yet the subject achieved a higher maximal VO2 in the SPVinc
(74 mL · kg–1 · min–1) than in the graded exercise test (GXT) and speed-based self-paced VO2max test (SPVsp).

Table 1  Peak Values for Physiological and Intensity this in the GXT. Furthermore, a Pearson product–moment coef-
Variables Recorded During All Protocols, Mean ± SD ficient correlation of VO2max (in the GXT) showed the SPVincline to
have the highest correlation (P < .01) (r = .90, P = .00), followed
Variable GXT SPVspeed SPVincline by SPVspeed (r = .78, P = .00).
HRmax (beats/min) 182 ± 9 180 ± 9 183 ± 7
VEmax (L/min) 172 ± 23.5 176.9 ± 24.7 181.1 ± 22.4*
Discussion
RERmax 1.13 ± 0.1 1.16 ± 0.1 1.16 ± 0.1
RPEmax 19 ± 1 20 ± 0* 20 ± 0*
This study aimed to test whether the SPV ideology could be
administered on a motorized treadmill as an alternative to more
Speed (km/h) 17.6 ± 1.2 19.0 ± 2.1* 15.1 ± 0.7 traditional testing methods. The primary finding of this study was
Incline (%) 3±0 3±0 11.0 ± 3.2* that the VO2max values produced in the SPVspeed were not signifi-
TTE (min) 11 ± 1 10 ± 0 10 ± 0 cantly different from those produced in the GXT, suggesting that
self-pacing, which better reflects exercise in actuality and sport,3
Abbreviations: GXT, graded exercise test; SPVspeed, speed-based self-paced test of can be simulated on a motorized treadmill. This suggests that the
maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max); SPVincline, incline-based self-paced VO2max test;
HR, heart rate; VE, minute ventilation; RER, respiratory-exchange ratio; RPE, rating SPVspeed is a suitable alternative to the GXT and may specifically
of perceived exertion; TTE, time to exhaustion. suit those more accustomed to pacing.
*Significant difference between either SPVspeed or SPVincline and GXT (P < .05). Notably, vVO2max values produced between the SPVspeed and
GXT were not significantly different; however, the SPVspeed did
produce significantly higher peak speed values than the GXT (19.3
± 1.7 vs 17.6 ± 1.2 km/h, respectively). This finding is in stark con-
SPVincline (26.3 ± 3.3 mL/min) (P = .026). Table 1 displays values trast to Mauger et al,5 who found that peak speeds in the SPV were
for secondary criteria. significantly lower than in the GXT. However, this is likely a result
LoA values (Figure 3) for VO2max compared between the SPVin- of the nonmotorized treadmill used in that study, producing lower
cline and the GXT, SPVspeed, and the GXT, and the 2 SPV protocols speeds due to higher belt friction.11 In the current study, the peak
were 6 ± 3, 8 ± 4, and 5 ± 3 mL · kg–1 · min–1, respectively. The speeds observed in SPVspeed may better reflect the finishing speeds
LoA data for the 2 SPV protocols compared respectively to the these runners achieve in athletic performance, where pacing is key,2
GXT show a bias toward participants with a lower VO2max tending and therefore may make this protocol more relevant for competitive
to achieve their highest value from the 3 tests in 1 of the 2 SPV athletes. The finding that vVO2max produced in the SPVspeed is simi-
protocols, while participants with a higher VO2max tended to achieve lar to that produced in the GXT is important, as vVO2max has been
 176  Hogg, Hopker, and Mauger
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/22/16, Volume 10, Article Number 2
Figure 3 — Level of agreement between maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)
from each protocol for all 3 protocols, incline-based self-paced VO2max test
(SPVinc) versus graded exercise test (GXT) (top panel), speed-based self-
paced VO2max test (SPVsp) versus GXT (middle panel), and SPVsp versus
SPVinc (bottom panel).
shown to convey valuable information when analyzing running per-
formances over 1500 m up to the marathon,12 meaning the SPVspeed
protocol could be used as a reliable predictor of both VO2max and
vVO2max, which could in turn then be used for performance analysis.
In the study by Mauger and Sculthorpe,7 the higher VO2max
values achieved in the SPV were attributed to a significant increase
in power output in the final stage, followed by a significant drop by
the end of the final stage. We note that this observation was similar
in the current study (see Figure 2), where participants tended to
achieve a spike in intensity (in the SPVincline) followed by a large
decline during the second half of the final stage. However, during the
SPVspeed, participants tended to maintain high speeds until the end
of the test, perhaps suggesting they did not fully exert themselves
at the start of the final stage. It is possible that due to their trained
status, it may be difficult to achieve the high speeds required to reach
maximal exertion on a treadmill, so further familiarization may be
required. This might explain why, in contrast to the SPVincline, the
SPVspeed did not produce higher VO2max values than the GXT. The
majority of the participants achieved their highest incline early in the
second-to-last stage of the SPVincline (RPE 17), followed by a decline
going into the final stage. This is supported by the finding from
the LoA data that, in the more highly trained participants, VO2max
tended to be higher in the GXT. Conversely, this was reversed for
the lesser-trained participants, who tended to achieve their highest
VO2max in the SPV protocols. It could be inferred that this may be due
to the more-seasoned athletes not reaching intensities high enough
during the SPV protocols to obtain a true VO2max; however, further
investigation is needed to explore these differences.
Chidnok et al10 suggested that the higher VO2max values found
in the study by Mauger and Sculthorpe7 may be protocol dependent
(as opposed to physiological limitations) due to the GXT test lasting
significantly longer than the SPV (13 vs 10 min). However, in the
current study (and that of Mauger et al5), there was no significant
difference in duration between the 3 protocols, suggesting that the
higher VO2 values are more likely to be the result of a physiological
difference than a function of test duration. Moreover, protocols of
longer duration have been suggested to underestimate VO2max,17
with many authors recommending a duration of 8 to 12 minutes,16,17
while Midgley et al18 have suggested that the 8- to 12-minute rec-
ommendation should not be considered a necessity.
It is notable that the majority of participants anecdotally
reported that they found the SPVincline the most challenging and
physically stressful, which is supported by the findings that in the
SPVincline, respiratory-exchange ratio (although not significant)
was consistently higher, while minute ventilation was significantly
higher (compared with the SPVspeed and GXT). However, while the
SPV requires the athlete to exercise at RPE 20, this requires some
degree of motivation, and it should be acknowledged that a truly
maximal intensity in the final stage of the SPV may not always
be reached. It is therefore important that future research look to
investigate the perceptual responses of the SPV protocols compared
with the GXT. While the exact VO2 cost of ventilation cannot be
accurately elucidated from the current study, it is still considered
partly responsible for the rise in VO2 from VT to maximal intensi-
ties,26 with it being reported to account for around 18% to 23% of
the VO2 slow component.27 However, using ΔVO2/ΔVE data from
Vella et al,25 estimates for the breathing cost of VO2 from the 3
protocols can be accurately calculated. Our data suggest that a sig-
nificantly higher breathing cost developed from the GXT than the 2
SPV protocols—therefore, the role of the oxygen cost of breathing
in relation to the SPV should be examined.
The SPVincline produced significantly higher VO2max values than
both the SPVspeed and the GXT, which equates to 3% higher than the
GXT. The minimal significant change in VO2 between trials has been
suggested to be 2%,28 whereas improvements in the region of 3%
to 5% and above have been accepted as an improvement in aerobic
capacity.4,29,30 This is in contrast to previous research where protocols
with greater gradients were found to generally underestimate VO2max
compared with speed-based protocols.16,21 Kang et al21 suggest that
this may be due to a combination of a greater incline coupled with
a low running speed, which may result in loss of efficiency and
premature muscle fatigue. In the current study, during the SPVincline,
participants still reached, on average, peak speeds of 15.1 ± 0.7 km/h
coupled with an incline of 11.0% ± 3.2%. However, the higher VO2max
values found in the SPVincline could be caused by the uphill running
triggering an increase in lower-extremity muscle-volume activation15
and ultimately increasing O2 delivery to the working muscles, which
could then drive up VO2max. As a countermeasure to this, we used
a 3% gradient in the GXT, and in support, McCole et al31 found
that VO2max was not significantly different in 2 protocols where the
participants reached gradients of 8% and 14%, respectively.
Practical Implications
Due to the self-paced nature of the SPVspeed, this protocol may be
more suitable for seasoned athletes with the ability to reach high
speeds during a maximal test. This protocol better represents what
the athletes would experience in a race. In addition, it makes it

easier to reach speeds that more aptly reflect the athletes’ ability and
fitness levels while also giving a more accurate reflection of their
finish sprint capabilities. Further research should aim to transfer the
self-paced protocol to a field setting and further investigate the impli-
cations of the self-paced protocol for athletes and coaches alike.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that a motorized self-paced speed-based
running VO2max protocol is a viable alternative to a GXT while also
producing similar VO2max values. This test is an attractive alternative
due to its better representing the finishing speeds and change of
pace that athletes’ may experience during a competitive race. The
current findings show that self-paced exercise, to an extent, can be
achieved on a motorized treadmill and may even be more effective
than on a nonmotorized treadmill, where running mechanics are
too dissimilar to normal running.11
References
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/22/16, Volume 10, Article Number 2
1. Bassett DR, Howley ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake
and determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2000;32(1):70–84. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-200001000-00012
2. Bailey SJ, Vanhatalo A, Dimenna FJ, Wilkerson DP, Jones AM.
Fast-start strategy improves VO2 kinetics and high-intensity exercise
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(3):457–467. PubMed
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ef3dce
3. Noakes TD. Testing for maximum oxygen consumption has produced
a brainless model of human exercise performance. Br J Sports Med.
2008;42(7):551–555. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.046821
4. Beltrami FG, Froyd C, Mauger AR, Metcalfe AJ, Marino F, Noakes
TD. Conventional testing methods produce submaximal values of
maximum oxygen consumption. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):23–29.
PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090306
5. Mauger AR, Metcalfe A, Taylor L, Castle PC. The efficacy of the
self-paced VO2max test to measure maximal oxygen uptake in treadmill
running. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013;38(12):1211–1216. PubMed
6. Foster C, Coyle RB, Crowe A, et al. Comparison of free range and
graded exercise testing. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(11):1521–
1526. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-199711000-00020
7. Mauger AR, Sculthorpe N. A new VO2max protocol allowing self-pacing
in maximal incremental exercise. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):59–63.
PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090006
8. Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 1998.
9. Mauger AR. VO2max is altered by self-pacing during incremental exer-
cise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(2):541–542. PubMed doi:10.1007/
s00421-012-2562-y
10. Chidnok W, Dimenna FJ, Bailey SJ, et al. VO2max is not altered
by self-pacing during incremental exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2013;113(2):529–539. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2478-6
11. Hopker JG, Coleman DA, Wiles JD, Galbraith A. Familiarisation and
reliability of sprint test indices during laboratory and field. J Sports
Sci Med. 2009;8:528–532. PubMed
12. Russell RD, Redmann SM, Ravussin E, Hunter GR, Enette Larson-
Meyer D. Reproducibility of endurance performance on a treadmill
using a preloaded time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):717–
724. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000121954.95892.C8
13. Billat LV, Koralsztein JP. Significance of the velocity at Vo2max and
time to exhaustion at this velocity. Sports Med. 1996;22(2):90–108.
PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-199622020-00004
Motorized Treadmill Self-Paced Test   177
14. Laursen PB, Jenkins DG. The scientific basis for high-inten-
sity interval training. Sports Med. 2002;32(1):53–73. PubMed
doi:10.2165/00007256-200232010-00003
15. Sloniger MA, Cureton KJ, Prior BM, Evans EM. Anaerobic capacity
and muscle activation during horizontal and uphill running. J Appl
Physiol. 1997;83(1):262–269. PubMed
16. Buchfuhrer MJ, Hansen JE, Robinson TE, Sue DE, Wasserman K,
Whipp BJ. Optimizing the exercise protocol for cardiopulmonary
assessment. J Appl Physiol. 1983;55(5):1558–1564. PubMed
17. Yoon BK, Kravitz L, Robergs R. VO2max, protocol duration, and the
VO2 plateau. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(7):1186–1192. PubMed
doi:10.1249/mss.0b13e318054e304
18. Midgley AW, Bentley D, Luttikholt H, McNaughton LR, Millet GP.
Challenging a dogma of exercise physiology: does an incremental
exercise test for valid VO 2 max determination really need to last
between 8 and 12 minutes? Sports Med. 2008;38(6):441–447. PubMed
doi:10.2165/00007256-200838060-00001
19. Davies B, Daggett A, Jakeman P, Mulhall J. Maximum oxygen uptake
utilising different treadmill protocols. Br J Sports Med. 1984;18(2):74–
79. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.18.2.74
20. Midgley AW, McNaughton L, Carroll S. Verification phase as a useful
tool in determination of the maximal oxygen uptake of distance
runners. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006;31(5):541–548. PubMed
doi:10.1139/h06-023
21. Kang J, Chaloupka M, Mastrangelo MA, Biren GB, Robertson RJ.
Physiological comparisons among three maximal treadmill exercise
protocols in trained and untrained individuals. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2001;84(4):291–295. PubMed doi:10.1007/s004210000366
22. Astorino TA. Alteration in VO2max and the VO2 plateau with manipula-
tion of sampling interval. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2009;29(1):60–
67. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1475-097X.2008.00835.x
23. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exer-
cise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams
& Wilkins; 2006:99–102.
24. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing
agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.
Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(86)90837-8
25. Vella CA, Marks D, Roberts RA. Oxygen cost of ventilation during
incremental exercise to VO2max. Respirology. 2006;11:175–181.
PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2006.00825.x
26. Lucía AJ-LL, Rivero MP, Serrano J, Calbet A, Santalla A, Chicharro
JL. Determinants of VO2 kinetics at high power outputs during a
ramp exercise protocol. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(2):326–331.
PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-200202000-00022
27. Gaesser GA, Poole DC. The slow component of oxygen uptake
kinetics in humans. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1996;24:35–71. PubMed
doi:10.1249/00003677-199600240-00004
28. Midgley AW, McNaughton L, Polman R, Marchant D. Criteria for
determination of maximal oxygen uptake: a brief critique and recom-
mendations for future research. Sports Med. 2007;37(12):1019–1028.
PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-200737120-00002
29. Levine BD, Stray-Gundersen J. “Living high–training low”: Effect
of moderate-altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on
performance. J Appl Physiol. 1997;83(1):102–112. PubMed
30. Stray-Gundersen J, Chapman R, Levine B. “Living high–training low”
altitude training improves sea level performances in male and female
elite runners. J Appl Physiol. 2001;91(3):1113–1120. PubMed
31. McCole SD, Davis A, Fueger P. Is there a disassociation of maximal
oxygen consumption and maximal cardiac output? Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2001;33(8):1265–1269. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-
200108000-00004