Why the study?
RAMP incremental testing is commonly used to evaluate physical performance, but the best-designed protocol remains unknown.
Does a 0.556 W·s-1 RAMP incremental test compared to a 0.278 W·s-1 test alter peak power, total work, maximal heart rate, heart rate recovery, and peak blood lactate in healthy men?
Does a 0.556 W·s-1 RAMP incremental test compared to a 0.278 W·s-1 test alter peak power, total work, maximal heart rate, heart rate recovery, and peak blood lactate in healthy men?
The 0.556 W·s-1 RAMP protocol is recommended over the 0.278 W·s-1 protocol as it is shorter and requires less effort while effectively measuring peak power.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
0.556 W·s-1 ramp yields higher peak power with reduced effort; supports its preference over slower ramps and extends evidence on ramp rate effects.
Background: The linearly increased loading (RAMP) incremental test is a method commonly used to evaluate physical performance in a laboratory, but the best-designed protocol remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the selected variables used in training control resulting from the two different intensities of RAMP incremental tests. Methods: Twenty healthy and physically active men took part in this experiment. The tests included two visits to a laboratory, during which anthropometric measurements, incremental test on a cycle ergometer, and examinations of heart rate and blood lactate concentration were made. The cross-over study design method was used. The subjects underwent a randomly selected RAMP test with incremental load: 0.278 W·s⁻¹ or 0.556 W·s⁻¹. They performed the second test a week later. Results: Peak power output was significantly higher by 51.69 W (p < 0.001; t = 13.10; ES = 1.13) in the 0.556 W·s⁻¹ group. Total work done was significantly higher in the 0.278 W·s⁻¹ group by 71.93 kJ (p < 0.001; t = 12.55; ES = 1.57). Maximal heart rate was significantly higher in the 0.278 W·s⁻¹ group by 3.30 bpm (p < 0.01; t = 3.72; ES = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rate recovery and peak blood lactate. Conclusions: We recommend use of the 0.556 W·s⁻¹ RAMP protocol because it is of shorter duration compared with 0.278 W·s⁻¹ and as such practically easier and of less effort for subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michalik et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: