Key result
Cuffless BP wearables show a strong ~0.76 correlation with standard CPET for estimating anaerobic threshold.
Why the study?
Measuring the anaerobic threshold requires expensive equipment and specialized expertise, so this study evaluated whether a cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable device could determine it using the double product break point.
Does a cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable device accurately estimate the anaerobic threshold using the double product break point in healthy adults?
Observational (n=13)
No
Does a cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable device accurately estimate the anaerobic threshold using the double product break point in healthy adults?
A cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable device can accurately estimate the anaerobic threshold during aerobic exercise, offering a more accessible alternative to traditional cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
May support cuffless wearables for AT research in healthy adults; leaves open clinical validation and utility.
Introduction The anaerobic threshold (AT) is an essential indicator of aerobic exercise. However, it is difficult to measure because it requires expensive, spacious equipment and specialized expertise. The double product break point (DPBP) has recently been reported as an alternative indicator of the AT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the usefulness of a cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable (CBPW) device for determining the AT using the DPBP as an indicator. Methods Thirteen healthy adults aged 24–30 years underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), and the oxygen uptake (VO 2 ) and heart rate (HR) at the AT as well as at the DPBP (cuff-based sphygmomanometer) were determined. Simultaneously, the CBPW device was worn to measure the DPBP. The agreement between the VO 2 and HR at the AT, as well as the DPBPs obtained from the cuff-based sphygmomanometer and CBPW device, were evaluated using correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots. Results Data from the CBPW device enabled the identification of the DPBP in 13 participants. A strong positive correlation was observed between the VO 2 at the AT and at the DPBP measured by the CBPW device (r = 0.760, p < 0.001), and no fixed or proportional error was found. A strong positive correlation was also found between the HR at the AT and pulse rate at the DPBP measured by the CBPW device (r = 0.945, p < 0.001), but a fixed error with a mean difference of 2.0 (limits of agreement: -7.3 to 11.2) was observed. Correlation was not significant between the VO 2 at the AT and at the DPBP derived from the sphygmomanometer (r = 0.241, p = 0.476), and between the HR at the AT and at the DPBP derived from the sphygmomanometer (r = 0.217, p = 0.521). Conclusion The results indicate that using the CBPW device could enable easier AT estimation without the need for expensive, large equipment, potentially making aerobic exercise more accessible. Conversely, the DPBP measurements obtained with a cuff-based sphygmomanometer showed low agreement with the AT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katsumata et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Healthy adults (n=13). Cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable (CBPW) device vs. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and cuff-based sphygmomanometer was evaluated on Correlation between oxygen uptake (VO2) at the anaerobic threshold and at the double product break point (r = 0.760, p=<0.001). A cuffless blood pressure monitoring wearable device demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.760) with standard cardiopulmonary exercise testing for estimating the anaerobic threshold in healthy adults.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: