REF-930 · Reed & Pipe, 2014 · Current Opinion in Cardiology, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

The talk test: a useful tool for prescribing and monitoring exercise intensity

C+thin evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

This review looks at recent work on how valid and reliable the talk test is for prescribing and monitoring exercise intensity, and at its use in high-intensity interval training and in patients with atrial fibrillation.

In healthy adults and in patients with cardiovascular disease, talking comfortably is likely possible below the ventilatory or lactate threshold and likely not possible above it. The test can generate moderate-to-vigorous intensities that fall within accepted guidelines, and it has proved consistent across exercise modes.

For high-intensity interval training it may not be practical. The authors describe it as a practical, inexpensive, valid and reliable tool.

Participants

A review; the populations covered are competitive athletes, healthy active adults and patients with cardiovascular disease. The number of studies is not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Narrative review of recent literature on the validity and reliability of the talk test.
Also examined: its utility for high-intensity interval training and for proposed exercise training guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation.
No search strategy is described in the abstract.

Key Results

Talking comfortably is likely possible below the ventilatory or lactate threshold (equivocal or last positive talk test stage) and likely not possible above it (negative stage).
The talk test can produce intensities within accepted guidelines for exercise training (moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 40-80%; the abstract's unit is an equation shown only in the full text).
It has been shown to be consistent across modes: walking, jogging, cycling, elliptical trainer and stair stepper.
It may not be practical for high-intensity interval training.
It can be used to monitor training for patients with atrial fibrillation and to help avoid exertional ischemia.

Practical Application

A narrative review concludes that in competitive athletes, healthy active adults and cardiac patients comfortable speech is likely possible below the ventilatory or lactate threshold and not likely above it, consistently across walking, jogging, cycling, the elliptical trainer and the stair stepper. To "can I trust 'conversational pace' as an intensity guide?": yes for keeping easy work easy, in any of those activities.
Its limit is stated in the review itself: it may not be practical for high-intensity interval training. Hard sessions need another instrument.
Inference, not tested here: the test separates below from above one threshold; it does not grade intensities within the easy range or above the threshold.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the talk test as the boundary marker for sessions without a power meter is in SYNTH-40, and as the beginner's intensity rule in SYNTH-75; the primary validation in healthy volunteers is REF-929.

Limitations

Narrative review; no search strategy, study count or pooled estimate in the abstract.
Written for a clinical cardiology readership; much of the literature is in patients and healthy adults, not trained endurance athletes.
The unit of the 40-80% intensity range is an equation not reproduced in the abstract.
Not suited to high-intensity interval training, by the authors' own statement.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

narrative review without a systematic method