Oxygen uptake plateau: calculation artifact or physiological reality?

Abstract

To test whether the oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) plateau at [Formula: see text] is simply a calculation artifact caused by the variability of [Formula: see text] or a clearly identifiable physiological event. Forty-six male participants performed an incremental ramp and a [Formula: see text] verification test. Variability of the difference between adjacent sampling intervals (difference) and of the slope of the [Formula: see text]-workload relationship (slope) in the submaximal intensity domain were calculated. Workload defined sampling intervals used for the calculation of the difference and slope were systematically increased from 20 to 100W until the expected risk of false plateau diagnoses based on the Gaussian distribution function was lower than 5%. Overall, more than 1500 differences and slopes were analyzed. Subsequently, frequencies of plateau diagnoses in the submaximal and maximal intensity domains were compared. Variability of the difference and slope decreased with increasing sampling interval (p < 0.001). At a sampling interval of 50W, the predefined acceptable risk of false plateau diagnoses (≤ 5%) was achieved. At this sampling interval, the actual frequency (1.4%) of false-positive plateau diagnoses did not differ from the expected frequency in the submaximal intensity domain (1.6%; p = 0.491). In contrast, the actual frequency at maximal intensity (35.7%) was significantly higher compared to the submaximal intensity domain (p < 0.001) and even higher than the expected frequency of false-positive diagnoses (p < 0.001). The [Formula: see text] plateau at [Formula: see text] represents a physiological event and no calculation artifact caused by [Formula: see text] variability. However, detecting a [Formula: see text] plateau with sufficient certainty requires large sampling intervals.