MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Metabolic Equations To Estimate Vo 2 Max Of Healthy Active Canadian Men Aged 18-34 Years-old: Preliminary Results

2020· article· en· W3041470594 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie Simard, Marc-Olivier Dugas, Frédérique Lehouillier, Patricia Blackburn, Fernanda Michelle Santos e Silva Ribeiro, Martin Lavallière, Tommy Chevrette

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessVO2 maxTreadmillSports medicineMedicinePhysical fitnessMetabolic equivalentTest (biology)Aerobic exercisePhysical therapyPhysical activityMathematicsHeart rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VO2max is simply defined by the body’s ability to use oxygen during physical exercise and is widely used as an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness. Lower VO2max is associated with higher risk of morbidity and mortality as well as low physical performance while higher VO2max levels predict good performance in aerobic sports. Direct measurement of VO2max is still considered as the gold standard. However, it is costly, required sophisticated equipment, and less accessible. Therefore, several metabolic equations have been developed to estimate VO2max using indirect calculation in sub maximal tests. The most commonly used equations are those developed by the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM) and the research group of Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database (FRIEND). PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of these two equations to estimate VO2max comparatively to direct O2 consumption measurement. METHODS: 30 healthy active men aged between 18-34 years old (BMI: 23,9±2,9 kg/m2) who are avid runners performed a maximal treadmill test with direct VO2 measures (mlO2/kg/min) using a metabolic cart (Vyntus CPX). VO2max estimation was calculated using ACSM and FRIEND running metabolic equations. Direct and indirect results were compared with repeated measures T-test. These preliminary results are part of a larger study which includes 180 men and women of all age group (18-34, 35-54, and ≥ 55y.o.). RESULTS: Indirect VO2max obtained from ACSM and FRIEND equations showed very large (d = 2.01) and moderate (d = 0.6) effect size, and were significantly different when compared to direct measures (ACSM: 66,4±7,0; FRIEND: 56,5±5,9; Vyntus: 53,0±6,3; p<0,001). The mean ACSM overestimation was 13,4 mlO2/kg/min while FRIEND equation was only 3,5 mlO2/kg/min. CONCLUSION: The VO2max calculated with ACSM and FRIEND equations for running showed overestimate values in our male sample. However, the average difference between direct and indirect measurement is smaller when using the FRIEND equation suggesting better accuracy. More research is needed to evaluate the accuracy in different populations and different fitness levels to optimize the VO2max estimation formula.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→