Abstract
Objectives This study will aim to assess the acute cardiopulmonary differences of a treadmill walking warm□up (WW) versus a suspension warm□up (SW) immediately preceding cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in recreationally active college□aged adults. The primary outcomes will be to assess differences in peak oxygen consumption, peak heart rate, and peak minute ventilation during CPET following a WW versus a SW. Secondary outcomes will include time to exhaustion, rate of perceived exertion, blood pressure, tidal volume, fraction of expired oxygen consumption, and respiration rate.
Methods
This study will be a randomized counterbalanced crossover design. Participants will complete two separate CPETs over two non□consecutive test days (≥48□h, ≤7□d). During each visit, participants will complete either a WW (6□min at self□selected pace on a treadmill, 0% grade) or SW (6□min dynamic sequence of suspension training exercises), followed by an incremental treadmill CPET protocol up to maximal exertion. Gas exchange, heart rate, blood pressure, and rate of perceived exertion will be measured at rest, after warm-up, during CPET protocol, immediately after, and after 5 minutes of resting. Analyses will use linear mixed-effects models and two one-sided tests for equivalence.
Conclusions
This protocol will determine whether a brief, dynamic suspension training warm□up is a practical and transferable approach or rather different from a traditional treadmill warm-up before CPET in active young adults.
Ethics/registration IRB SP2553 (June 25, 2025), clinical trials Identifier: NCT07215052.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT07215052
Funding Statement
Funded was provided by a Creativity and Research Grant by Monmouth University
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics/registration granted with number IRB SP2553 on June 25, 2025, by the Institutional Review Board of Monmouth University
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
DECLARATIONS Ethics approval and consent to participate. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Monmouth University, New Jersey, US (June 25, 2025; Protocol SP2553).
Consent for publication. Not required.
Availability of data and materials. Not applicable at this stage.
Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding. This research is funded by Monmouth University Creativity & Research Grant (Spring 2025).
Authors’ contributions. TR□F is the guarantor. Conceptualization: TR□F, RF; Methodology: TR□F, RF. Writing—original draft: TR□F. Review & editing: TR□F, RF, JP, TCA. All authors have read and approved the final protocol.
Trial registration. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT07215052).
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.