Moh H Malek1, Terry J Housh, Dale E Berger, Jared W Coburn, Travis W Beck. 1. Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 110 Ruth Leverton Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0806, USA. mmalek@unlserve.unl.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of the present study were to (a) modify previously published VO2(max) equations using the constant error (CE) values for aerobically trained females, (b) cross-validate the modified equations to determine their accuracy for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females, (c) derive a new nonexercise-based equation for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females if the modified equations are found to be inaccurate, and (d) cross-validate the new VO2(max) equation using the PRESS statistic and an independent sample of aerobically trained females. METHODS: A total of 115 aerobically trained females (mean +/- SD: age = 38.5 +/- 9.4 yr) performed a maximal incremental test on a cycle ergometer to determine actual VO2(max). The predicted VO2(max) values from nine published equations were compared with actual VO2(max) by examining the CE, standard error of estimate (SEE), validity coefficient (r), and total error (TE). RESULTS: Cross-validation of the modified nonexercise-based equations on a random subsample of 50 subjects resulted in a %TE > or = 13% of the mean of actual VO2(max). Therefore, the following nonexercise-based VO2(max) equation was derived on a random subsample of 80 subjects: VO2(max) (mL x min(-1)) = 18.528 (weight in kg) + 11.993 (height in cm) - 17.197(age in yr) + 23.522 (h x wk(-1) of training) + 62.118 (intensity of training using the Borg 6-20) + 278.262 (natural log of years of training) - 1375.878 (R = 0.83, R2 adjusted = 0.67, and SEE = 259 mL x min(-1)). Cross-validation of this equation on the remaining sample of 35 subjects resulted in a %TE of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The nonexercise equation presented here is recommended over previously published equations for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females.
PURPOSE: The purposes of the present study were to (a) modify previously published VO2(max) equations using the constant error (CE) values for aerobically trained females, (b) cross-validate the modified equations to determine their accuracy for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females, (c) derive a new nonexercise-based equation for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females if the modified equations are found to be inaccurate, and (d) cross-validate the new VO2(max) equation using the PRESS statistic and an independent sample of aerobically trained females. METHODS: A total of 115 aerobically trained females (mean +/- SD: age = 38.5 +/- 9.4 yr) performed a maximal incremental test on a cycle ergometer to determine actual VO2(max). The predicted VO2(max) values from nine published equations were compared with actual VO2(max) by examining the CE, standard error of estimate (SEE), validity coefficient (r), and total error (TE). RESULTS: Cross-validation of the modified nonexercise-based equations on a random subsample of 50 subjects resulted in a %TE > or = 13% of the mean of actual VO2(max). Therefore, the following nonexercise-based VO2(max) equation was derived on a random subsample of 80 subjects: VO2(max) (mL x min(-1)) = 18.528 (weight in kg) + 11.993 (height in cm) - 17.197(age in yr) + 23.522 (h x wk(-1) of training) + 62.118 (intensity of training using the Borg 6-20) + 278.262 (natural log of years of training) - 1375.878 (R = 0.83, R2 adjusted = 0.67, and SEE = 259 mL x min(-1)). Cross-validation of this equation on the remaining sample of 35 subjects resulted in a %TE of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The nonexercise equation presented here is recommended over previously published equations for estimating VO2(max) in aerobically trained females.