A Comparison of Methods to Identify the Mean Response Time of Ramp-Incremental Exercise for Exercise Prescription

Introduction: The oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.) O₂) vs power output relationship from ramp incremental exercise is used to prescribe aerobic exercise. As power output increases, there is a delay in (Formula presented.) O₂ that contributes to a misalignment of (Formula presented.) O₂ from power output; the mean response time (MRT). If the MRT is not considered in exercise prescription, ramp incremental-identified power outputs will elicit (Formula presented.) O₂ values that are higher than intended. We compared three methods of determining MRT (exponential modeling (MRT_EXP), linear modeling (MRT_LIN), and the steady-state method (MRT_SS)) and evaluated their accuracy at predicting the (Formula presented.) O₂ associated with power outputs approximating 75% and 85% of gas exchange threshold and 15% of the difference between gas exchange threshold and maximal (Formula presented.) O₂ (Δ15). Methods: Ten males performed a 30-W∙min⁻¹ ramp incremental and three 30-min constant power output cycle ergometer trials with intensities at 75% gas exchange threshold, 85% gas exchange threshold, and ∆15. At each intensity, the measured steady-state (Formula presented.) O₂ during each 30-min test was compared to the (Formula presented.) O₂ predicted after adjustment by each of the three MRTs. Results: For all three MRT methods, predicted (Formula presented.) O₂ was not different (p = 1.000) from the measured (Formula presented.) O₂ at 75%GET (MRT_EXP, 31 mL, MRT_LIN, −35 mL, MRT_SS 11 mL), 85%gas exchange threshold (MRT_EXP −14 mL, MRT_LIN −80 mL, MRT_SS −32 mL). At Δ15, predicted (Formula presented.) O₂ based on MRT_EXP was not different (p =.767) from the measured (Formula presented.) O₂, but was different for MRT_LIN (p <.001) and MRT_SS (p =.03). Conclusion: Given that the intensity is below gas exchange threshold, all model predictions implemented from the current study matched the exercise prescription.