OBJECTIVE: Cardiorespiratory fitness is currently estimated by dividing maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2max)) by body weight (per-weight standard). However, the statistically correct way to neutralize the effect of weight on VO(2max) in a given population is adjustment for body weight by regression techniques (adjusted standard). Our objective is to quantify the bias introduced by the per-weight standard in a population distributed across different categories of body mass. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Baseline measures from participants of the Dose-Responses to Exercise Training Study (DR's EXTRA), 635 men (body mass index (BMI): 19-47 kg m⁻²) and 638 women (BMI: 16-49 kg m⁻²) aged 57-78 years who performed oral glucose tolerance tests and maximal exercise stress tests with direct measurement of VO(2max). We compare the increase in VO(2max) implied by the per-weight standard with the real increase of VO(2max) per kg body weight. A linear logistic regression model estimates odds for abnormal glucose metabolism (either impaired fasting glycemia or impaired glucose tolerance or Type 2 diabetes) of the least-fit versus most-fit quartile according to both per-weight standard and adjusted standard. RESULTS: The per-weight standard implies an increase of VO(2max) with 20.9 ml min⁻¹ in women and 26.4 ml min⁻¹ in men per additional kg body weight. The true increase per kg is only 7.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-8.8) and 8.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-10.7), respectively. Risk for abnormal glucose metabolism in the least-fit quartile of the population is overestimated by 52% if the per-weight standard is used. CONCLUSIONS: In comparisons across different categories of body mass, the per-weight standard systematically underestimates cardiorespiratory fitness in obese subjects. Use of the per-weight standard markedly inflates associations between poor fitness and co-morbidities of obesity.
OBJECTIVE:Cardiorespiratory fitness is currently estimated by dividing maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2max)) by body weight (per-weight standard). However, the statistically correct way to neutralize the effect of weight on VO(2max) in a given population is adjustment for body weight by regression techniques (adjusted standard). Our objective is to quantify the bias introduced by the per-weight standard in a population distributed across different categories of body mass. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Baseline measures from participants of the Dose-Responses to Exercise Training Study (DR's EXTRA), 635 men (body mass index (BMI): 19-47 kg m⁻²) and 638 women (BMI: 16-49 kg m⁻²) aged 57-78 years who performed oral glucose tolerance tests and maximal exercise stress tests with direct measurement of VO(2max). We compare the increase in VO(2max) implied by the per-weight standard with the real increase of VO(2max) per kg body weight. A linear logistic regression model estimates odds for abnormal glucose metabolism (either impaired fasting glycemia or impaired glucose tolerance or Type 2 diabetes) of the least-fit versus most-fit quartile according to both per-weight standard and adjusted standard. RESULTS: The per-weight standard implies an increase of VO(2max) with 20.9 ml min⁻¹ in women and 26.4 ml min⁻¹ in men per additional kg body weight. The true increase per kg is only 7.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-8.8) and 8.0 ml min⁻¹ (95% confidence interval: 5.3-10.7), respectively. Risk for abnormal glucose metabolism in the least-fit quartile of the population is overestimated by 52% if the per-weight standard is used. CONCLUSIONS: In comparisons across different categories of body mass, the per-weight standard systematically underestimates cardiorespiratory fitness in obese subjects. Use of the per-weight standard markedly inflates associations between poor fitness and co-morbidities of obesity.
Authors: Niina Lintu; Anna Viitasalo; Tuomo Tompuri; Aapo Veijalainen; Mikko Hakulinen; Tomi Laitinen; Kai Savonen; Timo A Lakka Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jakob Tarp; Anders Grøntved; Miguel A Sanchez-Lastra; Knut Eirik Dalene; Ding Ding; Ulf Ekelund Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 5.501