Conconni Test (Protocol and validity)

[Justin Lewis]

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.

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

I value any ideas and responses.

Thanks very much

Justin Lewis

 

[John Forrest To]

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

> 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.

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 http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

 

[Amit]

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

> 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

 

[Tim Mullin]

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

> 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?

 

[Andy Coggan]

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

>
> 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.

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

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

Andy Coggan

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

 

[Andy Coggan]

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

> 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

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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).

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