Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Criterion validity of the Ekblom‑Bak and the Åstrand submaximal test in an elderly population
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 62020 (English)In: European Journal of Applied Physiology, ISSN 1439-6319, E-ISSN 1439-6327, Vol. 120, no 2, p. 307-316Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose The aim of this study was to validate the submaximal Ekblom-Bak test (EB-test) and the angstrom strand test (angstrom-test) for an elderly population.

Methods Participants (n = 104), aged 65-75 years, completed a submaximal aerobic test on a cycle ergometer followed by an individually adjusted indirect calorimetry VO(2)max test on a treadmill. The HR from the submaximal test was used to estimate VO(2)max using both the EB-test and angstrom-test equations.

Results The correlation between measured and estimated VO(2)max using the EB method and angstrom 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 VO(2)max 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 angstrom 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 VO(2)max in men with low fitness and the angstrom method was found to underestimate VO(2)max 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 angstrom method. Corresponding values for men were 11.6% and 18.9%, respectively.

Conclusion The submaximal EB-test is valid for estimating VO(2)max in elderly women, but not in all elderly men. The angstrom-test is not valid for estimating VO(2)max in the elderly.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020. Vol. 120, no 2, p. 307-316
Keywords [en]
Cardiorespiratory fitness, Elderly, Oxygen uptake, Submaximal test, Validity, Public health
National Category
Sport and Fitness Sciences Physiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-179540DOI: 10.1007/s00421-019-04275-7ISI: 000511955700001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-179540DiVA, id: diva2:1412598
Available from: 2020-03-06 Created: 2020-03-06 Last updated: 2020-03-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Aging Research Center (ARC), (together with KI)
In the same journal
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Sport and Fitness SciencesPhysiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf