Estimation of VO₂max: A Comparative Analysis of Five Exercise Tests

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 and 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 rs (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.

Key Words:

• VO₂max estimation
• field test
• aerobic power