Cited by 154Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthCardiovascular Effects of Exercise

A simple nonexercise model of cardiorespiratory fitness predicts long-term mortality

NES, BJARNE MARTENS, VATTEN, LARS J., NAUMAN, JAVAID, JANSZKY, IMRE, WISLØFF, ULRIK·2014·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong predictor of future health, but measurements of CRF are time consuming and involve costly test procedures. We assessed whether a simple, non-exercise-based test of CRF predicted long-term all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we used a previously published nonexercise test to estimate CRF in healthy men (n = 18,348) and women (n = 18,764) from the first HUNT study (1984-1986) in Norway. We used Cox regression to obtain HR for mortality during a mean follow-up of 24 yr. Assessment of model validity was performed by standard procedures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: CRF was inversely associated with all-cause and CVD mortality in men and women below 60 yr of age at baseline, after adjustment for confounders. For each MET-higher CRF (MET, approximately 3.5 mL·kg·min), HR for CVD mortality was 21% lower in both men (95% confidence interval (CI), 17%-26%) and women (95% CI, 12%-29%). HR for all-cause mortality was 15% (95% CI, 12%-17%) lower in men and 8% (95% CI, 3%-3%) lower in women for each MET-higher CRF. The ability of the model to discriminate mortality risk among participants below 60 yr was better for CRF (area under the curve (AUC), 0.70-0.77) compared with that for each variable that constituted the model (AUC, 0.55-0.63) and an aggregated sum of z-scores for each variable (AUC, 0.61-0.65). Comparison of observed and predicted risk indicated good model calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This method of assessing CRF is feasible and practically useful in primary care for identification of apparently healthy individuals at increased risk of premature CVD disease and all-cause mortality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0000000000000219

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NES, B. M., VATTEN, L. J., NAUMAN, J., JANSZKY, I., & WISLØFF, U.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2014-06
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
1159-1165
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048356582
Cited by
154
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
20.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Keywords
cardiorespiratory fitness, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, mortality prediction, primary care, healthy adults, HUNT study, risk discrimination and calibration
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiovascular Physiological Phenomena, Female, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Physical Examination, Physical Fitness, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Respiration, Risk Assessment

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