Criterion validity of the Ekblom-Bak and the \xc5strand submaximal test in an elderly population

Daniel Väisänen,Jonna Nilsson,Örjan Ekblom,Maria Ekblom,Eva Andersson,Elin Ekblom-Bak

doi:10.1007/s00421-019-04275-7

Daniel Väisänen, Jonna Nilsson + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04275-7

Copy DOI

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to validate the submaximal Ekblom-Bak test (EB-test) and the Åstrand test (Å-test) for an elderly population.MethodsParticipants (n = 104), aged 65–75 years, completed a submaximal aerobic test on a cycle ergometer followed by an individually adjusted indirect calorimetry VO2max test on a treadmill. The HR from the submaximal test was used to estimate VO2max using both the EB-test and Å-test equations.ResultsThe correlation between measured and estimated VO2max using the EB method and Å method in women was r = 0.64 and r = 0.58, respectively and in men r = 0.44 and r = 0.44, respectively. In women, the mean difference between estimated and measured VO2max was − 0.02 L min−1 (95% CI − 0.08 to 0.04) for the EB method and − 0.12 L min−1 (95% CI − 0.22 to − 0.02) for the Å method. Corresponding values for men were 0.05 L min−1 (95% CI − 0.04 to 0.14) and − 0.28 L min−1 (95% CI − 0.42 to − 0.14), respectively. However, the EB method was found to overestimate VO2max in men with low fitness and the Å method was found to underestimate VO2max in both women and men. For women, the coefficient of variance was 11.1%, when using the EB method and 19.8% when using the Å method. Corresponding values for men were 11.6% and 18.9%, respectively.ConclusionThe submaximal EB-test is valid for estimating VO2max in elderly women, but not in all elderly men. The Å-test is not valid for estimating VO2max in the elderly.

Highlights

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is established as a strong predictor of health (Kodama et al 2009; Harber et al 2017)
coefficient of variation (CV) was somewhat lower for the EB method compared to the Å method in both women (11.1% vs. 19.8%) and men (11.6% vs. 18.9%), accompanied with a smaller standard error of the estimate (SEE) in both women (0.20 L min−1 vs. 0.36 L min−1) and men (0.25 L min−1 vs. 0.50 L min−1) (Table 2)
We found a moderate correlation between the EB method and measured VO2max in men; there was an overestimation of V O2max in men with low fitness

Summary

Introduction

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is established as a strong predictor of health (Kodama et al 2009; Harber et al 2017). The maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) test is the gold standard (Fletcher et al 2001) for measuring CRF. The test requires the participant to perform a maximal effort that can be intimidating for some parts of the population. It is especially, challenging for an elderly population prone to abnormal gait (Mahlknecht et al 2013), impaired balance (Lin and Bhattacharyya 2012), and muscular weakness (Julius et al 1967). Since CRF is such an important predictor of health outcomes, increasing its availability may enable identification of elderly individuals with low V O2max in need of medical care or lifestyle interventions. The American Heart Association has stated that CRF should be used as a clinical evaluation tool (Ross et al 2016)

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion