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: The current standard measure of cardiorespiratory fitness introduces confounding by body mass: the DR's EXTRA study.
    Author: Savonen K, Krachler B, Hassinen M, Komulainen P, Kiviniemi V, Lakka TA, Rauramaa R.
    Journal: Int J Obes (Lond); 2012 Aug; 36(8):1135-40. PubMed ID: 22105518.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Cardiorespiratory fitness is currently estimated by dividing maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2max)) by body weight (per-weight standard). However, the statistically correct way to neutralize the effect of weight on VO(2max) in a given population is adjustment for body weight by regression techniques (adjusted standard). Our objective is to quantify the bias introduced by the per-weight standard in a population distributed across different categories of body mass. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Baseline measures from participants of the Dose-Responses to Exercise Training Study (DR's EXTRA), 635 men (body mass index (BMI): 19-47 kg m⁻²) and 638 women (BMI: 16-49 kg m⁻²) aged 57-78 years who performed oral glucose tolerance tests and maximal exercise stress tests with direct measurement of VO(2max). We compare the increase in VO(2max) implied by the per-weight standard with the real increase of VO(2max) per kg body weight. A linear logistic regression model estimates odds for abnormal glucose metabolism (either impaired fasting glycemia or impaired glucose tolerance or Type 2 diabetes) of the least-fit versus most-fit quartile according to both per-weight standard and adjusted standard. RESULTS: The per-weight standard implies an increase of VO(2max) with 20.9 ml min⁻¹ in women and 26.4 ml min⁻¹ in men per additional kg body weight. The true increase per kg is only 7.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-8.8) and 8.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-10.7), respectively. Risk for abnormal glucose metabolism in the least-fit quartile of the population is overestimated by 52% if the per-weight standard is used. CONCLUSIONS: In comparisons across different categories of body mass, the per-weight standard systematically underestimates cardiorespiratory fitness in obese subjects. Use of the per-weight standard markedly inflates associations between poor fitness and co-morbidities of obesity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]