4.6 Article

Predicting VO2peak from Submaximal- and Peak Exercise Models: The HUNT 3 Fitness Study, Norway

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144873

关键词

-

资金

  1. K.G. Jebsen Foundation
  2. Norwegian Council on cardiovascular Disease
  3. Research Council of Norway
  4. Foundation for Cardiovascular Research at St. Olav's Hospital
  5. Norwegian State Railways
  6. Roche Norway Incorporated
  7. Valnesfjord Rehabilitation Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) is seldom assessed in health care settings although being inversely linked to cardiovascular risk and all-cause mortality. The aim of this study was to develop VO2peak prediction models for men and women based on directly measured VO2peak from a large healthy population Methods VO2peak prediction models based on submaximal- and peak performance treadmill work were derived from multiple regression analysis. 4637 healthy men and women aged 20-90 years were included. Data splitting was used to generate validation and cross-validation samples. Results The accuracy for the peak performance models were 10.5% (SEE = 4.63 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) and 11.5% (SEE = 4.11 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) for men and women, respectively, with 75% and 72% of the variance explained. For the submaximal performance models accuracy were 14.1% (SEE = 6.24 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) and 14.4% (SEE = 5.17 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) for men and women, respectively, with 55% and 56% of the variance explained. The validation and cross-validation samples displayed SEE and variance explained in agreement with the total sample. Cross-classification between measured and predicted VO2peak accurately classified 91% of the participants within the correct or nearest quintile of measured VO2peak. Conclusion Judicious use of the exercise prediction models presented in this study offers valuable information in providing a fairly accurate assessment of VO2peak, which may be beneficial for risk stratification in health care settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据