## 1 Introduction  
The fundamental tenet of maximal oxygen consumption (\(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max), positing a threshold in speed or work rate beyond which no further increases in \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\) is observed, traces its origins back in the seminal work of [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 1923 [PERSON] and [PERSON] (1923). They observed a limit to the body's ability to use oxygen during exercise, beyond which oxygen consumption reaches a plateau despite increasing exercise intensity. Currently, \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max is recognized as a key measure in exercise physiology and sports medicine ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018). However, it should be noted that the certainty of reaching \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max requires the observation of a \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\) plateau (\(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl), defined as the point at which \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\) remains relatively constant despite increasing work rate. Therefore, by definition, diagnosis of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max requires a \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl, whether it occurs at the end of a continuous incremental test, between the final stages of a discontinuous test, or between an incremental test and a subsequent verification test, as [PERSON] and [PERSON] pointed out (2018). The observation that only a subset of participants in an incremental test have a \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl highlights the variability inherent in such assessments. Reported incidences vary considerably, ranging from 17 to 94%, even in studies involving more than 50 participants, particularly depending on the definition of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl used ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018). This variability has led to an extensive debate on the conceptualization and diagnosis of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max over the last three decades ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018). Only 20-50% of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max tests result in a plateau according to this definition ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018). The low frequency of the \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl has been reported by ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018). However, behind the discussion about the absolute necessity of observing a \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl to assess true \"\(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max\", and not just a \"\(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)peak\" ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018), lies the fundamental question of the limiting factors of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\). Reasons for the presence of \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)pl in some, but not all, athletes are not yet clear ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018). Lower anaerobic power or capacity has been suggested as a cause of the absence of plateau ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018). Furthermore, it has been shown that faster oxygen kinetics, which minimizes the anaerobic contribution to metabolism in the severe intensity range between the respiratory compensation threshold (RCP) and \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max (or \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)peak) during an incremental exercise test (IET), increases the chances of a plateau occurring at \(\dot{\mathrm{VO}}_{2}\)max ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018). However, the role of the brain in regulating exercise intensity to exhaustion has been hotly debated ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018; [PERSON] _et al._, 2018). More specifically, the brain has been given greater consideration in models describing the factors responsible for continuing or stopping ongoing exercise. [PERSON] has suggested that unpleasant sensations of fatigue provide useful feedback to the central nervous system and are used as key regulators to stop exhausting exercise before there is a risk of physiological damage ([PERSON] _et al._, 2018).