Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 1;17(4):1134-1154.
eCollection 2024.

Do Surrogate Markers of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Predict Individual Changes in VO2peak? A Randomized Controlled Trial

John R M Renwick  1 , Nicholas Preobrazenski  1   2 , Michael D Giudice  1 , Brendon J Gurd  1
Affiliations

Do Surrogate Markers of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Predict Individual Changes in VO2peak? A Randomized Controlled Trial

John R M Renwick et al. Int J Exerc Sci. .

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to test the hypothesis that individual response classification for surrogate markers of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) will agree with response classification for VO2peak. Surrogate markers of CRF were time to fatigue on treadmill test (TTF), time trial performance (3kTT), resting heart rate (RHR), submaximal heart rate (SubmaxHR), and submaximal ratings of perceived exertion (SubmaxRPE). Twenty-five participants were randomized into a high-intensity interval training (HIIT: n = 14) group or non-exercise control group (CTL: n = 11). Training consisted of four weeks of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) - 4x4 minute intervals at 90-95% HRmax 3 times per week. We observed poor agreement between response classification for VO2peak and surrogate markers (agreement < 60% for all outcomes). Although surrogate markers and VO2peak correlated at the pre- and post-intervention time points, change scores for VO2peak were not correlated with changes in surrogate markers of CRF. Interestingly, a significant relationship (r 2 = 0.36, p = 0.02) was observed when comparing improvements in estimated training performance (VO2) and change in VO2peak. Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed poor classification agreement and non-significant correlations for changes scores of VO2peak and surrogate markers of CRF. Our results suggest that individuals concerned with their VO2peak response seek direct measurements of VO2.

Keywords: Responders; measurement error; patterns of response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of study protocol. RHR = resting heart rate; VO2max = maximal aerobic capacity; 3kTT = 3000m time trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participant flow diagram. CTL = no-exercise control group; HIIT = high intensity interval training.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A) Mean training heart rate and B) mean estimated training VO2 are presented across 12 high-intensity interval training sessions (n = 14).* Significantly (p < 0.05) different from Session 1; † Significantly (p < 0.05) different from Sessions 1 and 2; ‡ Significantly (p < 0.05) different from Session 4. C) Individual changes in training performances (estimated VO2) are presented following 4 weeks of HIIT (n = 14). Mean response estimate (ΔVO2) following training was 4.04 ± 2.21 mL/kg/min. The proportion of responders was 79% (11/14). Changes in training performances are arranged by magnitude of smallest individual response estimate to largest. Green dots represent individuals who are classified as “responders”; black dots represent “uncertain” responses. Data presented as mean ± SD. CTL = no-exercise control group; HIIT = high intensity interval training; VO2 = oxygen uptake; HR = heart rate.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Individual responses, total response (%) and agreement (%) with VO2peak response following short-term HIIT in both the HIIT group (n = 14) and CTL group (n = 11) of HIIT (n = 14). VO2peak = maximal aerobic capacity; TTF = time to fatigue; Submax HR = submaximal heart rate achieved immediately following the fourth stage of an incremental test; Submax RPE = submaximal rating of perceived exertion following the fourth stage of an incremental test; RHR = resting heart rate; 3kTT = 3000m time trial. White tiles denote individuals classified as a “responder”, black tiles denote “uncertain” response, grey tiles denote “adverse” response and tiles with an “x” represent data was unable to be collected. “Resp%”: Percentage of individuals who have demonstrated meaningful improvement beyond 1xTE. “VO2 agreement %”: Indicates the percentage of participants whose surrogate measure classification matched their VO2peak classification.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Individual response classification following four-week training period in non-exercise CTL group (n = 11) and in HIIT group (n = 14). Coloured data points reflect response classification for each individual; green data points represent a 1TE responder; black data points represent an “uncertain” response; grey data points represent an “adverse-responder”. See Table 2 for p-values and effect sizes; * Significant interaction effect observed (p < 0.01); † Significant effect of group observed (p < 0.05); ‡ = Significant effect of time observed p < 0.05). Data presented as mean ± SD. CTL = no-exercise control group; HIIT = high intensity interval training; VO2peak = peak oxygen uptake; TTF = time to fatigue; SubmaxHR = submaximal heart rate; SubmaxRPE = submaximal rating of perceived exertion; RHR = resting heart rate; 3kTT = 3000m time trial performance.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Change scores of all surrogate markers of CRF and their correlations with changes in VO2peak following 4 weeks of HIIT (n = 14). Effect size (r2), Pearson correlation value (r) and p-values are presented on the figure for each surrogate marker of CRF. CRF = cardiorespiratory fitness; VO2peak = peak oxygen update; TTF = time to fatigue; SubmaxHR = submaximal heart rate; SubmaxRPE = submaximal rating of perceived exertion; RHR = resting heart rate; 3kTT = 3000m time trial performance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Astorino TA, Schubert MM. Individual responses to completion of short-term and chronic interval training: A retrospective study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e97638. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atkinson G, Batterham AM. True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. Exp Physiol. 2015;100(6):577–588. - PubMed
    1. Billat V, Demarle A, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP. Effect of training on the physiological factors of performance in elite marathon runners (males and females) Int J Sports Med. 2002;23(5):336–341. - PubMed
    1. Blair SN, Kohl HW, Paffenbarger RS, Clark DG, Cooper KH, Gibbons LW. Physical fitness and all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy men and women. JAMA. 1989;262(17):2395–2401. - PubMed
    1. Bonafiglia JT, Brennan AM, Ross R, Gurd BJ. An appraisal of the SDIR as an estimate of true individual differences in training responsiveness in parallel-arm exercise randomized controlled trials. Physiol Rep 7(14): e14163, 2019 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
Note 3
twitter 2