Longitudinal changes in cardiorespiratory fitness among firefighters based on a fixed 12.0 MET standard and an age-adjusted fitness standard.

BACKGROUND: Firefighting is a physically demanding profession. Firefighters (FFs) need adequate physical fitness (PF) to perform duty tasks efficiently. While FFs' work demands are constant throughout their career, there is an expected age-related decline in PF. OBJECTIVE: To describe longitudinal changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) based on a fixed (12.0 METs) and an age-adjusted standard and compare the prevalence of fit/unfit firefighters (FFs) over eight years. METHODS: 297 Brazilian male firefighters were randomly selected. CRF was assessed by the 12-minute Cooper test. To compare the prevalence's of fit/unfit FFs depending on the standard (12 METs vs. age-adjusted), the McNemar test was used. RESULTS: The reduction in the prevalence of fit firefighters was 4.4-fold higher when the analysis did not consider age. CONCLUSION: After eight years, the prevalence of fit FFs decreased by 30.5% based on the fixed standard, while this reduction was only 7% when using an age-adjusted standard.

Cardiorespiratory fitness assessment among firefighters: Is the non-exercise estimate accurate?

BACKGROUND: Minimum cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has been recommended for firefighters due to job requirements. Thus, it is important to identify accurate and readily available methods to assess CRF in this population. Non-exercise CRF estimates (NEx-CRF) have been proposed but this approach requires validation in this population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a NEx-CRF, as compared to a field maximum exercise test, among career military firefighters of both genders using a comprehensive agreement analysis. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of a NEx-CRF estimate compared to the Cooper 12 min running test among 702 males and 106 female firefighters. RESULTS: Cooper and NEx-CRF tests yielded similar CRF in both genders (differences <1.8±4.7 ml/kg-1.min-1; effect size <0.34). However, NEx-CRF underestimated Cooper-derived CRF among the fittest firefighters. NEx-CRF showed moderate to high sensitivity/specificity to detect fit or unfit firefighters (71.9% among men and 100% among women). Among men, the NEx-CRF method correctly identified most firefighters with less than 11 METs or greater than 13 METs, but showed lower precision to discriminate those with CRF between 11-13 METs. CONCLUSIONS: The NEx-CRF method to estimate firefighters' CRF may be considered as an alternative method when an exercise-based method is not available or may be used to identify those who require more traditional testing (CRF 11-13 METs).