Validity of a V.O2 max prediction equation of the 2-km walk test in female seniors.

Walking is a useful exercise mode for most adults due to its general ease, acceptability, and safety. Therefore, many field tests based on performance in walking have been developed to predict V.O (2 max). Even if these tests are much easier to perform than laboratory tests, field tests have to be valid. The objective of the paper was to explore the accuracy and bias of a V.O (2 max) prediction equation of the 2-km Walk Test, in an active female senior group (n=18, mean age: 66.1+/-4.4). V.O (2 max) (l . min (-1)) was measured during cycle ergometry by direct gas analysis from a maximal test (step: 30 W, time: 2 min 30). V.O (2 max) related to body mass was then calculated (ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)). Subjects completed also the 2-km Walk Test (UKK Institute). V.O (2 max) (ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)) was then predicted from age, sex, body mass index, heart rate, and walking time measured during the 2-km Walk Test. Predicted V.O (2 max) and measured V.O (2 max) were highly correlated (r=0.63, p<0.01). Predicted V.O (2 max) (20.5+/-6.1 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)) was not significantly different from measured V.O (2 max) (18.7+/-3.4 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)). Prediction equation bias with its 95 % limits of agreement was - 1.8+/-4.8 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1) with a coefficient of variation of 24.2 %. In an active female senior population, the 2-km Walk Test offers a fairly accurate V.O (2 max) prediction. The training and learning effects can be neglected because when the test was repeated no significant bias was observed between the two trials.

A 5-min running field test as a measurement of maximal aerobic velocity.

Based on a theoretical approach from world record running data, we have previously calculated that the most suitable duration for measuring maximal aerobic velocity (Vamax) by a field test was 5 min (Vamax(5)). The aim of this study was, therefore, to check this hypothesis on 48 men of various levels of physical fitness by comparing (Vmax(5)) with (Vamax) determined at the last step of a progressive treadmill exercise test when the subject felt exhausted (Vamax(t)) and during a test on a running track, behind a cyclist (following an established protocol) (Vamax(c)). For each test, (VO2max) was also measured by a direct method on a treadmill (VO2max(1)) and calculated by an equation for field tests (VO2max(5) and VO2max(c)). The Vamax(5) [17.1 (SD 2.2) km.h-1] and (Vamax(c)) [(18.2 (SD 2.4) km.h-1] were significantly higher than (Vamax(t)) [16.9 (SD 2.6) km.h-1; P < 0.001]. The (Vamax(t)) was strongly correlated with (Vamax(5)) (r = 0.94) and (Vamax(c)) (r = 0.95) (P < 0.001). The best identity and correlation between (Vamax(5)) and track performances were found in the runners (n = 9) with experience over a distance of 3,000 m. The VO2max(5) and (VO2max(c)) were higher than VO2max(t) (+ 5.0% and + 13.7%, respectively; P < 0.001) and VO2max(t) was highly correlated with Vamax(5) (r = 0.90; P < 0.001). These results suggest that the 5-min field test, easy to apply, provided precise information on Vamax and to a lesser degree on VO2max.

Maximal aerobic velocity measured by the 5-min running field test on two different fitness level groups.

The aim of the study was to verify the validity and the accuracy of the 5-min running field test (5RFT) relatively to the classical treadmill test. Two groups of subjects were tested, the first one being made of sub-elite runners (G1, n = 18) and the second one of athletes of other individual or collective disciplines (G2, n = 23). To check the field technique, maximal aerobic velocity (vamax) and an approached VO2max calculated from vamax during the 5RFT were compared with the corresponding values directly determined during a treadmill test. vamax obtained on treadmill (vamax(t)) or during a 5RFT (vamax(5)) were significantly higher in G1 than in G2 (+3.7 km.h-1 and +3.6 km.h-1 among the test). In each group, the difference between vamax(t) and vamax(5) was not significant (19.4 +/- 1.0 vs 19.5 +/- 0.9 km.h-1 in G1; 15.7 +/- 2.2 vs 15.9 +/- 1.2 km.h-1 in G2). A significant correlation was found between vamax(t) and vamax(5) (slope = 0.92; r = 0.86 in G1; slope = 0.71; r = 0.84 in G2). In each group, the approached VO2max(5) was significantly higher than VO2max(t) (respectively 67.8 +/- 2.9 vs 63.7 +/- 3.5 in G1; 54.8 +/- 3.9 vs 52.0 +/- 3.2 ml.min-1.kg-1 in G2. Weak but significant correlations were found between VO2(t) and vamax(5) (r = 0.69 and r = 0.56 respectively in G1 and G2). In conclusion, the 5RFT allows to measure vamax accurately whatever the physical fitness of the subjects but more closely in runners than in non-runners. The low correlation between VO2max(t) and vamax(5) for both groups indicates that a vamax running field test is specific and cannot evaluate VO2max with reasonable accuracy whatever the group, runners or non-runners.