Unfortunately, the virtue of having many authors and a comprehensive treatment of this difficult topic leads to some shortcomings. One of the main problems is simply the organization of the document. So much information is packed into so tight a format that reading the statement will be for most a labor of love. In particular, the organization of the statement makes it difficult at times to find topics and to keep them organized in a logical framework. Perhaps more bold headings, with better spacing between topics may have improved the visual impact. This shortcoming is serious enough that it will not allow us just to hand it out to our fellows and have any hope that they will read it. In addition, certain topics are discussed in great detail, such as technical aspects, but others of equal importance are only summarized, in particular the discussions on preoperative evaluation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and respiratory impairment. It would have been nice to see a few simple tables associated with these topics that would have outlined data regarding the minimal V̇o2 required to tolerate lung resection surgery (eg, 10 mL/ min/kg), the recommended exercise targets for pulmonary rehabilitation (eg, 60% maximum V̇o2), or categories of impairment based on V̇o2 (eg, > 25 mL/min/kg.) Hopefully, as the field progresses there will be another chance at redoing the document. If so, we might also be so bold as to suggest a few alternative structures. Since most readers will be using the document for information about interpretation, perhaps the technical aspects should have been separated. Indeed, the entire document could be much more approachable if it were published in parts, with one part covering technical and theoretical issues, and the others focusing on practical points of testing and interpretation. Nevertheless, having participated in such endeavors, we recognize the labor that went into this statement and congratulate the authors on their Herculean achievement.