Conconni Test (Protocol and validity)

"Justin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Second question: why is it considered necessary to maintain a

regular

Quoted message said:

(and usually low) cadence when performing the test? Surely you are measuring heartbeat against
produced power and the cadence is irrelevent.

Try pedalling at 200 watts and 70rpm. Then do 200watts and 100rpm. Take a look at what happens to
your heartrate.

JT

--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit jt10000.comjt10000.comOpen ↗
*******************************************

Justin Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know the current protocol for this test: particular reference to increases in wattage
and time at each stage.

Second question: why is it considered necessary to maintain a regular (and usually low) cadence
when performing the test? Surely you are measuring heartbeat against produced power and the
cadence is irrelevent.

Because heartrate is affected by cadence (among other things).

Quoted message said:

Third: is this test actually discredited (invalidating completely the above request)?

If you want to use it to determine a HR which will correspond to LT it's not very effective. It
might have other uses or be used with other diagnostics.

-Amit

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Try pedalling at 200 watts and 70rpm. Then do 200watts and 100rpm. Take a look at what happens to
your heartrate.

I tried doing this, but the lightbulbs I stuck in the spokes keep falling out a breaking! What am I
doing wrong?

"Justin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know the current protocol for this test: particular reference to increases in wattage
and time at each stage.

I don't, but type "Conconi" as a search term on PubMed and you'll turn up his dozen or so
publications.

Quoted message said:

Second question: why is it considered necessary to maintain a regular (and usually low) cadence
when performing the test? Surely you are measuring heartbeat against produced power and the
cadence is irrelevent.

Power might be independent of cadence on an ergometer, but heart rate isn't.

Quoted message said:

Third: is this test actually discredited (invalidating completely the above request)?

Pretty much, at least in the minds of most sports scientists.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"Justin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know the current protocol for this test: particular reference to increases in
wattage and time at each stage.

I don't, but type "Conconi" as a search term on PubMed and you'll turn up his dozen or so
publications.

Quoted message said:

Second question: why is it considered necessary to maintain a regular (and usually low) cadence
when performing the test? Surely you are measuring heartbeat against produced power and the
cadence is irrelevent.

Power might be independent of cadence on an ergometer, but heart rate isn't.

Quoted message said:

Third: is this test actually discredited (invalidating completely the above request)?

Pretty much, at least in the minds of most sports scientists.

A slight clarification, Max Testa still uses it, but only in conjunction with three or four other
tests to get some useful data about LT, and the Conconi test result is considered the least useful
of the group.

-WG

"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I use it as an indoor workout session to break up the monotony. Start at 150 watts and increase
25w every three minutes. It also provides a good comparitive analysis. Some test reports I've read
drop down to increasing every minute at 300w and up.

Sounds to me like you're confusing a common incremental exercise test with the Conconi protocol
(which emphasizes very short, non-steady-state stages).

Andy Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I use it as an indoor workout session to break up the

monotony.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Start at 150 watts and increase 25w every three minutes. It

also

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

provides a good comparitive analysis. Some test reports I've

read

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

drop down to increasing every minute at 300w and up.

Sounds to me like you're confusing a common incremental

exercise test with

Quoted message said:

the Conconi protocol (which emphasizes very short,

non-steady-state stages).

Guilty. IIRC the one minute version was looking for some flat spot in the HR plot. Never worked for
me. The first "stress test" I did was on a treadmill back in 1980 and cranked the grade/speed up
every 3 minutes. It became a bit of a competition among fellow employees and also gave an estimate
of V02 max. The report I was reading lately which reverted to 1 minute intervals also measured gas
exchange and determined a more accurate V02 max.

Phil Holman