Aerobic capacity (VO2 MAX) predicts both athletic performance and health status. Many tools are available to assess VO2 MAX ranging in both cost and accuracy. Understanding limitations of less expensive tools, likely found in settings such as health clinics or sports performance facilities, will help practitioners in developing accurate exercise prescriptions for their respective populations. To evaluate agreement lower cost VO2 MAX assessment tool (Vacu-Med Vista MINI-CPX) to the industry “gold standard” (ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400). Thirty-one participants (22.5 ± 3.5 years; BMI 24.9 ± 2.3; 51% female) completed two sessions of maximal VO2 MAX assessment using the Bruce Protocol graded treadmill exercise test. The first session of assessment utilized the “gold-standard” unit (TrueOne 2400, ParvoMedics, Inc., Murray, UT). 24-48 hours later the second unit (Vista Mini-CPX, Vacu-Med, Inc., Ventura, CA) was used to assess VO2 MAX again. A Bland-Altman analyses was used to evaluate both potential bias and agreement for between the two assessment tools. The CPX unit significantly overestimated VO2 MAX compared to the TrueOne (Bias = 10.67 ± 5.87 ml/kg/min, LoA = -0.83, 22.18; t = 1.96, p \u3c .001). However, the CPX unit demonstrates good reliability as 93.5% (29/31 participants) of values fell within the 95% LoA. Further, values above 46.5 ml/kg/min tend to be greater than the mean bias while those below tend to be lower than the mean bias (r = .605, F = 16.80, p \u3c .001). The CPX unit demonstrates good reliability yet a significant overestimation of aerobic capacity
