Santiago Lorenzo1, Tony G Babb2. 1. Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: TonyBabb@TexasHealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quantification and interpretation of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in obesity is important for adequately assessing cardiovascular conditioning, underlying comorbidities, and properly evaluating disease risk. We retrospectively compared peak oxygen uptake (VO(2)peak) (ie, CRF) in absolute terms, and relative terms (% predicted) using three currently suggested prediction equations (Equations R, W, and G). METHODS: There were 19 nonobese and 66 obese participants. Subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing and incremental cycling to exhaustion. Subject characteristics were analyzed by independent t test, and % predicted VO(2)peak by a two-way analysis of variance (group and equation) with repeated measures on one factor (equation). RESULTS: VO(2)peak (L/min) was not different between nonobese and obese adults (2.35 ± 0.80 [SD] vs 2.39 ± 0.68 L/min). VO(2)peak was higher (P < .02) relative to body mass and lean body mass in the nonobese (34 ± 8 mL/min/kg vs 22 ± 5 mL/min/kg, 42 ± 9 mL/min/lean body mass vs 37 ± 6 mL/min/lean body mass). Cardiorespiratory fitness assessed as % predicted was not different in the nonobese and obese (91% ± 17% predicted vs 95% ± 15% predicted) using Equation R, while using Equation W and G, CRF was lower (P < .05) but within normal limits in the obese (94 ± 15 vs 87 ± 11; 101% ± 17% predicted vs 90% ± 12% predicted, respectively), depending somewhat on sex. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional methods of reporting VO(2)peak do not allow adequate assessment and quantification of CRF in obese adults. Predicted VO(2)peak does allow a normalized evaluation of CRF in the obese, although care must be taken in selecting the most appropriate prediction equation, especially in women. In general, otherwise healthy obese are not grossly deconditioned as is commonly believed, although CRF may be slightly higher in nonobese subjects depending on the uniqueness of the prediction equation.
BACKGROUND: The quantification and interpretation of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in obesity is important for adequately assessing cardiovascular conditioning, underlying comorbidities, and properly evaluating disease risk. We retrospectively compared peak oxygen uptake (VO(2)peak) (ie, CRF) in absolute terms, and relative terms (% predicted) using three currently suggested prediction equations (Equations R, W, and G). METHODS: There were 19 nonobese and 66 obeseparticipants. Subjects underwent hydrostatic weighing and incremental cycling to exhaustion. Subject characteristics were analyzed by independent t test, and % predicted VO(2)peak by a two-way analysis of variance (group and equation) with repeated measures on one factor (equation). RESULTS: VO(2)peak (L/min) was not different between nonobese and obese adults (2.35 ± 0.80 [SD] vs 2.39 ± 0.68 L/min). VO(2)peak was higher (P < .02) relative to body mass and lean body mass in the nonobese (34 ± 8 mL/min/kg vs 22 ± 5 mL/min/kg, 42 ± 9 mL/min/lean body mass vs 37 ± 6 mL/min/lean body mass). Cardiorespiratory fitness assessed as % predicted was not different in the nonobese and obese (91% ± 17% predicted vs 95% ± 15% predicted) using Equation R, while using Equation W and G, CRF was lower (P < .05) but within normal limits in the obese (94 ± 15 vs 87 ± 11; 101% ± 17% predicted vs 90% ± 12% predicted, respectively), depending somewhat on sex. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional methods of reporting VO(2)peak do not allow adequate assessment and quantification of CRF in obese adults. Predicted VO(2)peak does allow a normalized evaluation of CRF in the obese, although care must be taken in selecting the most appropriate prediction equation, especially in women. In general, otherwise healthy obese are not grossly deconditioned as is commonly believed, although CRF may be slightly higher in nonobese subjects depending on the uniqueness of the prediction equation.
Authors: Sven Gläser; Beate Koch; Till Ittermann; Christoph Schäper; Marcus Dörr; Stephan B Felix; Henry Völzke; Ralf Ewert; James E Hansen Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2010-08
Authors: Paulo Azevedo; Dharini M. Bhammar; Tony G. Babb; T. Scott Bowen; Klaus K. Witte; Harry B. Rossiter; Julien V. Brugniaux; Ben D. Perry; Ricardo Dantas de Lucas; Tiago Turnes; Jeann L. Sabino-Carvalho; Thiago Ribeiro Lopes; Rodrigo Zacca; Ricardo J. Fernandes; Greg L. McKie; Tom J. Hazell; Lucas Helal; Anderson Donelli da Silveira; Craig Ryan McNulty; Robert Andrew Roberg; Tom E. Nightingale; Abdullah A. Alrashidi; Evgeny Mashkovskiy; Andrei Krassioukov; Pierre Clos; Davy Laroche; Benjamin Pageaux; David C. Poole; Andrew M. Jones; Gustavo Z. Schaun; Diego Santos de Souza; Tatiane de Oliveira Barreto Lopes; Mary Vagula; Li Zuo; Tingyang Zhao Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2018-07-01
Authors: D Debeaumont; C Tardif; V Folope; I Castres; F Lemaitre; C Tourny; P Dechelotte; C Thill; A Darmon; J B Coquart Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Satyam Sarma; Graeme Carrick-Ranson; Naoki Fujimoto; Beverley Adams-Huet; Paul S Bhella; Jeffrey L Hastings; Keri M Shafer; Shigeki Shibata; Kara Boyd; Dean Palmer; Edward W Szczepaniak; Lidia S Szczepaniak; Benjamin D Levine Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Matthew D Spencer; Bryce N Balmain; Vipa Bernhardt; Daniel P Wilhite; Tony G Babb Journal: Respir Physiol Neurobiol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 1.931