Estimation methods to detect changes in cardiorespiratory fitness due to exercise training and subsequent detraining

Matsuo, Tomoaki; So, Rina; Murai, Fumiko

doi:10.1007/s00421-022-05113-z

Cited by 1 publication

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MRM eVO 2max was calculated using the following equation derived from a previous study [ 16 ]: eVO 2max (MRM) = 64.22 − (0.23 × age) + (5.74 × sex; women = 0 and men = 1) − (0.57 × BMI) + (0.19 × questionnaire’s PA score) − (0.18 × JST’s HR index).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LEM eVO 2max was calculated based on a previous study [ 16 ]. Briefly, the LEM used a predetermined constant VO 2 value for each stage of the step test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A multiple regression model (MRM) is often used in the development of estimated VO 2max (eVO 2max ) equations, with measured VO 2max (mVO 2max ) as the response variable and clinicodemographic variables and/or other measurement variables, such as HR and physical activity (PA) parameters, as the explanatory variables [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Two studies [ 15 , 16 ] showed that the addition of HR during a step test to a questionnaire-based, non-exercise MRM improved the accuracy of VO 2max estimation. On the other hand, the Chester step test [ 17 ], which is considered an appropriate evaluation tool for CRF in adults owing to its acceptable reliability [ 18 , 19 ], uses the linear extrapolation method (LEM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, the LEM usually does not introduce systematic errors but yields a larger error variance than the MRM [ 14 ], which is likely due to the inaccuracy of the predicted maximal HR [ 21 , 22 ]. A previous study [ 16 ] reported that the addition of HR data from a step test to a questionnaire-based, non-exercise MRM could improve the estimation power of eVO 2max in cross-sectional analyses. However, VO 2max estimation using the developed MRM was problematic in detecting increased VO 2max induced by lifestyle changes because the predicted values were distorted at the upper limit, resulting in a VO 2max underestimation among participants whose actual VO 2max was improved by their exercise lifestyle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, we applied the eVO 2max MRM equation, including questionnaire scores and step-test HRs, which was developed in a previous study [ 16 ], to participants who were different from those in the equation development study and investigated the cross-validity of this equation. Subsequently, using this dataset, we aimed to investigate an accurate VO 2max estimation method that combines the advantages of both MRM and LEM and mitigates the weaknesses of these two methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Improved VO2max Estimation by Combining a Multiple Regression Model and Linear Extrapolation Method

Matsuo

Murai

2022

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) is an important health indicator that is often estimated using a multiple regression model (MRM) or linear extrapolation method (LEM) with the heart rate (HR) during a step test. Nonetheless, both methods have inherent problems. This study investigated a VO2max estimation method that mitigates the weaknesses of these two methods. A total of 128 adults completed anthropometric measurements, a physical activity questionnaire, a step test with HR measurements, and a VO2max treadmill test. The MRM included step-test HR, age, sex, body mass index, and questionnaire scores, whereas the LEM included step-test HR, predetermined constant VO2 values, and age-predicted maximal HR. Systematic differences between estimated and measured VO2max values were detected using Bland–Altman plots. The standard errors of the estimates of the MRM and LEM were 4.15 and 5.08 mL·kg−1·min−1, respectively. The range of 95% limits of agreement for the LEM was wider than that for the MRM. Fixed biases were not significant for both methods, and a significant proportional bias was observed only in the MRM. MRM bias was eliminated using the LEM application when the MRM-estimated VO2max was ≥45 mL·kg−1·min−1. In conclusion, substantial proportional bias in the MRM may be mitigated using the LEM within a limited range.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LEM eVO 2max was calculated based on a previous study [ 16 ]. Briefly, the LEM used a predetermined constant VO 2 value for each stage of the step test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%