Jeremy B Ducharme1, Ann L Gibson2. 1. Department of Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. jducharme@unm.edu. 2. Department of Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigate difference, agreement, and bias between maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) measured by indirect calorimetry and the Heart Rate Ratio Method (HRRM) for estimating VO2max using measured and age-predicted maximum heart rate (HRmax) in a sample of middle-aged and older adults. METHODS: Eleven men and nine women (age: 61.8 ± 8.5 years, VO2max: 36.6 ± 9.5 mL/kg/min, N = 20) had their VO2max measured via a maximal graded exercise test and confirmed using a verification bout on a treadmill ergometer. Participants' VO2max was estimated via the HRRM using measured and age-predicted HRmax. Difference, agreement, and bias between methods were assessed using a one-way repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between methods of assessing VO2max, F(1.13, 21.47) = 0.583, p = 0.473, generalized eta-squared = 0.012. The standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the HRRM using measured or predicted HRmax was 5.2% and 5.6% of the mean VO2max, respectively. Both HRRM predictions had poor agreement with VO2max (rc ≤ 0.40). There was a systematic bias to underestimate as VO2max increased for HRRM using measured HRmax, F(1, 18) = 17.40, p < 0.001, and when using an age-predicted HRmax, F(1, 18) = 13.39, p = 0.002. CONCLUSION: Both versions of the HRRM have poor agreement, relatively large SEEs, and a bias to misrepresent VO2max. When possible, VO2max should be measured via a maximal graded exercise test with indirect calorimetry for middle-aged and older adults.
PURPOSE: Investigate difference, agreement, and bias between maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) measured by indirect calorimetry and the Heart Rate Ratio Method (HRRM) for estimating VO2max using measured and age-predicted maximum heart rate (HRmax) in a sample of middle-aged and older adults. METHODS: Eleven men and nine women (age: 61.8 ± 8.5 years, VO2max: 36.6 ± 9.5 mL/kg/min, N = 20) had their VO2max measured via a maximal graded exercise test and confirmed using a verification bout on a treadmill ergometer. Participants' VO2max was estimated via the HRRM using measured and age-predicted HRmax. Difference, agreement, and bias between methods were assessed using a one-way repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between methods of assessing VO2max, F(1.13, 21.47) = 0.583, p = 0.473, generalized eta-squared = 0.012. The standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the HRRM using measured or predicted HRmax was 5.2% and 5.6% of the mean VO2max, respectively. Both HRRM predictions had poor agreement with VO2max (rc ≤ 0.40). There was a systematic bias to underestimate as VO2max increased for HRRM using measured HRmax, F(1, 18) = 17.40, p < 0.001, and when using an age-predicted HRmax, F(1, 18) = 13.39, p = 0.002. CONCLUSION: Both versions of the HRRM have poor agreement, relatively large SEEs, and a bias to misrepresent VO2max. When possible, VO2max should be measured via a maximal graded exercise test with indirect calorimetry for middle-aged and older adults.
Authors: Michael R Esco; Michele S Olson; Henry N Williford; Emmanuel M Mugu; Barbara E Bloomquist; Aindrea N McHugh Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Scott E Crouter; Amanda Antczak; Jonathan R Hudak; Diane M DellaValle; Jere D Haas Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2006-08-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Heather M Bowes; Catriona A Burdon; Gregory E Peoples; Sean R Notley; Nigel A S Taylor Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 3.078