These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Estimation of VO2max: a comparative analysis of five exercise tests.
    Author: Zwiren LD, Freedson PS, Ward A, Wilke S, Rippe JM.
    Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport; 1991 Mar; 62(1):73-8. PubMed ID: 2028096.
    Abstract:
    Thirty-eight female subjects (M +/ SD = 33 +/- 3.0 years) had VO2max measured on the cycle ergometer (M +/- SD = 37.3 +/- 6.4 ml.kg-1.min-1) and on the treadmill (M +/- SD = 41.3 +/- 6.6 ml.kg-1.min-1). VO2max was estimated for each subject from heart rate (HR) at submaximal workloads on the cycle ergometer using the Astrand-Rhyming nomogram (A/R) and the extrapolation method (XTP). VO2max was also estimated from three field tests: 1.5-mile run (RUN) (independent variable [IV] = time), mile walk (WALK) (IV = time, age, HR, gender, body weight), and the Queens College Step Test (ST) (IV = HR during 5-20 s recovery). Repeated measure ANOVA revealed significant mean differences between the criterion cycle ergometer VO2max versus A/R and XTP (20 and 12% overestimation). The WALK, RUN, and ST VO2max values were not significantly different from the criterion treadmill VO2max. The correlation between criterion VO2max estimated from the WALK and RUN were r = .73 (SEE = 4.57 ml,kg-1.min-1) and r = .79 (SEE = 4.13 ml.kg-1.min-1), respectively. The ST, A/R, and XTP had higher SEEs (13-13.5% of the mean) and lower r s (r = .55 to r = .66). These results suggest both the WALK and RUN tests are satisfactory predictors of VO2max in 30 to 39-year-old females.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]