ACSM And FRIEND Running Equations, Are They Valid For Healthy Active Women?: Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 performance while higher VO2max predict good performance in aerobic sports. Direct measurement of VO2max is still the gold standard, however this method presents high cost and required sophisticated equipment. Therefore, several metabolic equations have been developed to estimate VO2max using indirect calculation. 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: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of these two equations to estimate VO2max comparatively to direct O2 consumption measurement. METHODS: 21 healthy active women aged between 22-50y.o. (mean: 37,1±7,4)(BMI: 23,0±2,5kg/m2) performed a maximal treadmill test using a metabolic cart (Vyntus CPX) to measure direct VO2max (mlO2/kg/min). VO2max estimation was then calculated using ACSM and FRIEND running metabolic equations. Results were compared using repeated measures T-test. These preliminary results are part of a larger study which includes 180 men and women of all age group and fitness level (18-34, 35-54 and ≥ 55y.o.). RESULTS: When compared to the direct measurement (Vyntus: 44,9±4,9), only the ACSM equation showed significantly higher results 53,0±6,6)(mean difference: 8,1; p<0,01). The FRIEND equation did not significantly differ from the metabolic cart result (45,5±4,7)(mean difference: 0,56; p=0,5). In the same direction, ACSM showed a large effect size (Hedge’s g = 1,29) while Friend only showed a small effect size (g = 0,11). CONCLUSION: The VO2max calculated with the ACSM equation for running showed overestimated values in our female sample. The average difference between direct and indirect measurement when using the FRIEND equation suggests a better accuracy. More research is needed to evaluate the accuracy in different populations and different fitness level to optimize the VO2 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".