BACKGROUND: Physical activity level and cardiorespiratory fitness are both inversely associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases and with all-cause mortality. Physical activity questionnaires are often validated against objectively measured maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). AIM: To validate a self-report physical activity questionnaire against VO2max and furthermore to establish whether a simple question on self-rated physical fitness could predict objectively measured VO2max. METHODS: A total of 102 men and women aged between 35 and 65 years were recruited from an ongoing population-based intervention study, the Inter99 Study. Participants reported their self-rated fitness and daily physical activity using a new questionnaire based on metabolic equivalents (MET). VO2max (ml/kg per min) was determined using a graded bicycle test with increasing workload until exhaustion and with simultaneous measurement of breath-to-breath oxygen uptake in 15-s periods. Statistical analyses were performed by linear regression analyses using the self-reported physical activity level as an independent variable and VO2max (l/min) as an dependent variable, and with covariates sex, age and bodyweight. RESULTS: Data from 53 men and 47 women were analysed. The amount of daily vigorous activity (>6 MET) was significantly positively associated with VO2max (P=0.0001, R=0.76), whereas the total amount of physical activity was not significantly associated with VO2max (P=0.098, R=0.69). A significant trend across three groups of self-rated fitness in relation to VO2max (ml/kg per min) was found (P for trend <0.0001). CONCLUSION: The physical activity questionnaire has acceptable validity when compared with VO2max in adult men and women. Furthermore, a simple question on self-rated fitness seems to reflect measured VO2max objectively.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity level and cardiorespiratory fitness are both inversely associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases and with all-cause mortality. Physical activity questionnaires are often validated against objectively measured maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). AIM: To validate a self-report physical activity questionnaire against VO2max and furthermore to establish whether a simple question on self-rated physical fitness could predict objectively measured VO2max. METHODS: A total of 102 men and women aged between 35 and 65 years were recruited from an ongoing population-based intervention study, the Inter99 Study. Participants reported their self-rated fitness and daily physical activity using a new questionnaire based on metabolic equivalents (MET). VO2max (ml/kg per min) was determined using a graded bicycle test with increasing workload until exhaustion and with simultaneous measurement of breath-to-breath oxygen uptake in 15-s periods. Statistical analyses were performed by linear regression analyses using the self-reported physical activity level as an independent variable and VO2max (l/min) as an dependent variable, and with covariates sex, age and bodyweight. RESULTS: Data from 53 men and 47 women were analysed. The amount of daily vigorous activity (>6 MET) was significantly positively associated with VO2max (P=0.0001, R=0.76), whereas the total amount of physical activity was not significantly associated with VO2max (P=0.098, R=0.69). A significant trend across three groups of self-rated fitness in relation to VO2max (ml/kg per min) was found (P for trend <0.0001). CONCLUSION: The physical activity questionnaire has acceptable validity when compared with VO2max in adult men and women. Furthermore, a simple question on self-rated fitness seems to reflect measured VO2max objectively.
Authors: Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Nienke M Schutte; Ineke Nederend; James J Hudziak; Meike Bartels; Eco J C de Geus Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Sophie Baumann; Diana Guertler; Franziska Weymar; Martin Bahls; Marcus Dörr; Neeltje van den Berg; Ulrich John; Sabina Ulbricht Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Philip Green; Jonathan D Newman; Jonathan A Shaffer; Karina W Davidson; Mathew S Maurer; Joseph E Schwartz Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jonathan A Mitchell; Daniel B Bornstein; Xuemei Sui; Steven P Hooker; Timothy S Church; Chong D Lee; Duck-Chul Lee; Steven N Blair Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Noha H Farag; William E Moore; David M Thompson; Cee E Kobza; Kathryn Abbott; June E Eichner Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Cristóbal Esteban; José M Quintana; Javier Moraza; Myriam Aburto; Urko Aguirre; José I Aguirregomoscorta; Susana Aizpiri; Luis V Basualdo; Alberto Capelastegui Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: K Baum; U Hildebrandt; K Edel; R Bertram; H Hahmann; F J Bremer; S Böhmen; C Kammerlander; M Serafin; Th Rüther; E Miche Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 3.738