In healthy populations, the V̇o2max determined during cycle ergometry is modestly lower than that achieved during an exercise treadmill test.9 In addition, cycle ergometry may be unsuitable for elderly, frail, and severely limited patients, and a clinician might expect that the 6MWT more accurately reflects cardiorespiratory fitness.9 However, in the chronic stroke population, cycle ergometry (mean [± SD] V̇o2max, 22.0 ± 4.8 mL/kg/min) actually provides a better estimate of V̇o2max than the 6MWT (mean V̇o2max, 14.7 ± 3.3 mL/kg/min), and it is a more reliable marker of cardiorespiratory fitness. It is assumed that the difficulties that the study population had with balance, strength, and spasticity were better accommodated by cycle ergometry. In line with this assumption is the mean age-predicted maximum heart rate, which was 91.8 ± 10.7% compared with 65.1 ± 8.9%, respectively, using cycle ergometry and 6MWT. The level of perceived exertion, as measured by the 16-point Borg rating of perceived exertion scale, was also significantly greater during cycle ergometry. The authors discuss the fact that an exercise treadmill test with harness support minimizes the requirement for maintaining balance and may be an alternative to cycle ergometry. This qualification is intuitive, and further comparison of the two tests is warranted. However, the current study seems to indicate that cycle ergometry is the better assessment modality and perhaps the preferred training method for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in the population of patients with chronic stroke and residual disability.