This investigation compared estimated and predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) and maximal heart rate (HRmax) among the treadmill, cycle ergometer and elliptical ergometer. Seventeen women (mean ± SE: 21.9 ± .3 yrs) exercised to exhaustion on all modalities. ACSM metabolic equations were used to estimate VO2peak. Digital displays on the elliptical ergometer were used to estimate VO2peak. Two individual linear regression methods were used to predict VO2peak: 1) two steady state heart rate (HR) responses up to 85% of age-predicted HRmax, and 2) multiple steady state/non-steady state HR responses up to 85% of age-predicted HRmax. Estimated VO2peak for the treadmill (46.3 ± 1.3 ml · kg−1 · min−1) and the elliptical ergometer (44.4 ± 1.0 ml · kg−1 · min−1) did not differ. The cycle ergometer estimated VO2peak (36.5 ± 1.0 ml · kg−1 · min−1) was lower (p < .001) than the estimated VO2peak values for the treadmill and elliptical ergometer. Elliptical ergometer VO2peak predicted from steady state (51.4 ± .8 ml · kg−1 · min−1) and steady state/non-steady state (50.3 ± 2.0 ml · kg−1 · min−1) models were higher than estimated elliptical ergometer VO2peak, p < .01. HRmax and estimates of VO2peak were similar between the treadmill and elliptical ergometer, thus cross-modal exercise prescriptions may be generated. The use of digital display estimates of submaximal oxygen uptake for the elliptical ergometer may not be an accurate method for predicting VO2peak. Health-fitness professionals should use caution when utilizing submaximal elliptical ergometer digital display estimates to predict VO2peak.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract