4.6 Article

Comparison of Different Maximal Oxygen Uptake Equations to Discriminate the Cardiometabolic Risk in Children and Adolescents

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 194, Issue -, Pages 152-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.11.007

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnologia Francisco Jose de Caldas COLCIENCIAS [671-2014, 122265743978]
  2. Universidad del Rosario/Santiago de Chile [671-2014]
  3. Proyectos Basales [1555, Vridei 021787GH_MOV]
  4. Vicerrectoria de Investigacion, Desarrollo e Innovacion (Universidad de Santiago de Chile, USACH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the ability of 8 different maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) equations to discriminate between low and high cardiometabolic risk, and to determine cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) cutoffs associated with a more favorable cardiometabolic risk profile in Colombian children and adolescents. Study design In a cross-sectional study, CRF was estimated using the 20-m shuttle run test in 2870 schoolchildren (54.5% girls) from Bogota, Colombia. We computed a metabolic syndrome score (MetScore) as the sum of the age- and sex-standardized scores of waist circumference, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glucose, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Results Linear regression analyses showed that the Barnett et al (b) and Mahar equations were negatively associated with MetScore, showing the highest discriminatory accuracy for identifying the low/high cardiometabolic risk in both sexes and both age groups (9-12 years and 13-17 years). Conclusions We propose that the Barnett et al (b) equation for boys and girls, VO2max = 25.8 x (6.6 x G x 0.2 x (body mass + 3.2 x (final speed))), where G is gender (male = 0; female = 1), be used to classify youths at metabolic risk. The CRF cutoffs can serve as a quantitative marker of a healthier cardiovascular profile in Colombian children and adolescents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available