Measuring cardiorespiratory fitness without exercise testing: The development and validation of a new tool for spanish adults
Background: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an important component of overall physical fitness and is associated with numerous health benefits, including a reduced risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. However, direct measurement of CRF is time-consuming and therefore not feasible for scr...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10230/70770 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/70770 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082210 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Cardiorespiratory fitness Non-exercise cardiorespiratory fitness Validity |
| Sumario: | Background: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an important component of overall physical fitness and is associated with numerous health benefits, including a reduced risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. However, direct measurement of CRF is time-consuming and therefore not feasible for screening purposes. Methods: A maximal treadmill exercise test with the Bruce protocol was performed to estimate VO2max in 1047 Spanish men and women aged 17 to 62 years. Weight, height, and heart rate were measured. Leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) was recorded using the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. A multiple linear regression model was developed to predict exercise-based VO2max. The validity of the model was examined by correlation, concordance, Bland-Altman analysis, cross-validation, and construct validity analysis. Results: There was no significant difference between VO2max obtained by the Bruce protocol (43.56 mL/kg/min) or predicted by the equation (43.59 mL/kg/min), with R2 of 0.57, and a standard error of the estimate of 7.59 mL/kg/min. Pearson's product-moment correlation and Lin's concordance correlation between measured and predicted CRF values were 0.75 and 0.72, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant proportional bias of non-exercise eCRF, overestimating unfit and underestimating highly fit individuals. However, 64.3% of participants were correctly classified into CRF tertile categories, with an important 69.9% in the unfit category. Conclusions: The eCRF equation was associated with several cardiovascular risk factors in the anticipated directions, indicating good construct validity. In conclusion, the non-exercise eCRF showed a reasonable validity to estimate true VO2max, and it may be a useful tool for screening CRF. |
|---|