Validity of the revised Ekblom Bak cycle ergometer test in adults
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To further develop the Ekblom Bak-test prediction equation for estimation of VO2max from submaximal cycle ergometry. METHODS: The model group (117 men and 100 women, aged 48.3 ± 15.7 and 46.1 ± 16.8 years, VO2max 46.6 ± 11.1 and 40.4 ± 9.6 mL kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) and the cross-validation group (60 men and 55 women, aged 40.6 ± 17.1 and 41.6 ± 16.7 years, VO2max 49.0 ± 12.1 and 43.2 ± 8.9 mL min(-1) kg(-1), respectively) performed 4 min of cycling on a standard work rate (30 W) directly followed by 4 min on a higher work rate. Heart rate (HR) at each work rate was recorded. Thereafter, participants completed a graded maximal treadmill test for direct measurement of oxygen uptake. The new prediction equation was cross-validated and accuracy compared with the original Ekblom Bak equation as well as by the Åstrand test method. RESULTS: The final sex-specific regression models included age, change in HR per-unit change in power (ΔHR/ΔPO), the difference in work rates (ΔPO), and HR at standard work rate as independent variables. The adjusted R (2) for the final models were 0.86 in men and 0.83 in women. The coefficient of variation (CV) was 8.7 % and SEE 0.28 L min(-1). The corresponding CV and SEE values for the EB-test2012 and the Åstrand tests were 10.9 and 18.1 % and 0.35 and 0.48 L min(-1), respectively. CONCLUSION: The new EB-test prediction equation provides an easy administered and valid estimation of VO2max for a wide variety of ages (20-86 years) and fitness levels (19-76 mL kg(-1) min(-1)).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The EB-test has demonstrated good validity across ages and fitness levels, with a coefficient of variation of ~9% and a standard error of the estimate of ~0.25 L·min−1.
“The Ekblom-Bak test (EB-test) is a heart rate (HR) based submaximal cycle test that has demonstrated good validity across ages and fitness levels, with a coefficient of variation of ~ 9% and a standard error of the estimate of ~ 0.25 L min− 1 (Björkman et al. 2016; Ekblom-Bak et al. 2014).”
From Effects of caffeine and acute exercise on the validity of a submaximal cycle ergometer test: a randomised, placebo-controlled crossover study (2026) · cites this paper as Björkman et al. 2016
The magnitude of estimation errors following caffeine intake (-0.12 L·min−1) was broadly consistent with previous reports of estimation errors around −0.05 L·min−1 in age-matched individuals.
“Consequently, the magnitude of the estimation errors observed following caffeine intake (-0.12 L·min⁻¹) was broadly consistent with previous reports of estimation errors around − 0.05 L·min⁻¹ in age-matched individuals (Björkman et al. 2016).”
From Effects of caffeine and acute exercise on the validity of a submaximal cycle ergometer test: a randomised, placebo-controlled crossover study (2026) · cites this paper as Björkman et al. 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 148
- Authors
- Björkman, F., Ekblom-Bak, E., Ekblom, Ö., & Ekblom, B.
- Affiliations
- Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Björkman, Frida
- Venue
- European Journal of Applied Physiology
- Published
- 2016-06-16
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1627-1638
- ISSN
- 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-6319
- 1439-6327
- PMC
- PMC4983286
- OpenAlex
- W2439515440
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 13.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- VO2max prediction, prediction equations, adults, cardiorespiratory fitness assessment
- MeSH terms
- Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Adult, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Exercise Test, Physical Exertion, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen Consumption, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
