A comparison between two exercise tests on cycle; a computerised test versus the Åstand test.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Two submaximal cycle ergometer test methods, the Astrand nomogram test and a computerized two-point extrapolation test (Cat Eye ergociser, commercially available), were compared in order to determine agreement and repeatability of estimates of maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max). Twenty healthy women, divided into two groups of ten according to their age (mean 35.3 and mean 46.9), performed test-retest with each method. In both methods the VO2max was estimated from workload and the corresponding heart rate. The correlation between the VO2max using the two methods was high (r = 0.85, P < 0.001). Some of the estimates derived from the computerized test had large errors, which reduced the agreement between the tests. The variation (2SD), expressed in per cent of mean VO2max was 19% for the Astrand test and 34% for the computerized test. Furthermore, the computerized test underestimated the VO2max with approximately 5 ml kg-1 min-1 compared with the Astrand test. Due to this underestimation and the greater variation of the VO2max in the computerized test, it is not recommended to use the two methods interchangeably in clinical practice.

Details

Authors
Organisations
Research areas and keywords

Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY

  • Physiotherapy
  • Clinical Medicine
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)91-102
JournalClin Physiol
Volume15
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1995
Publication categoryResearch
Peer-reviewedYes

Bibliographic note

The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Division V (013230900), Division of Physiotherapy (Closed 2012) (013042000), Department of Clinical Physiology (Lund) (013013000)