Cited by 219Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthOccupational Health and Performance

Estimating V˙O2peak from a Nonexercise Prediction Model: The HUNT Study, Norway

NES, BJARNE MARTENS, JANSZKY, IMRE, VATTEN, LARS JOHAN, NILSEN, TOM IVAR LUND, ASPENES, STIAN THORESEN, WISLØFF, ULRIK·2011·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cardiorespiratory fitness is suggested to be an important marker of cardiovascular risk but is rarely evaluated in health care settings. In the present study, directly measured peak oxygen uptake (V·O 2peak) from a diverse population of 4637 healthy participants were used to develop and cross-validate a new nonexercise regression model of cardiorespiratory fitness for men and women. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multivariable regression analysis was used to develop a nonexercise model of cardiorespiratory fitness for men and women separately with V·O 2peak as the outcome. In the final models, 2067 men (mean age = 48.8 yr) and 2193 women (mean age = 47.9 yr) were included, respectively. Cross-validation of the models was done by standard data splitting procedures with evaluation of constant error and total error of a model developed on one sample and cross-validated on another sample. Age, waist circumference, leisure time physical activity, and resting HR, successively, were the most potent predictors of V·O 2peak for both men and women. Together, 61% and 56% of variance in V·O 2peak, for men and women, respectively, were explained by the full models. SEE was 5.70 and 5.14 for the models including men and women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The nonexercise regression model developed in the present study was fairly accurate in predicting V·O 2peak in this healthy population of men and women. The model might be generalized to other healthy populations and might be a valid tool for a rough assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness in an outpatient setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0b013e31821d3f6f

Cites

30 of 30 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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NES, B. M., JANSZKY, I., VATTEN, L. J., NILSEN, T. I. L., ASPENES, S. T., & WISLØFF, U.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2011-11
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
2024-2030
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024367100
Cited by
219
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.83
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 › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
Keywords
peak oxygen uptake, cardiorespiratory fitness, regression models, cross-validation, waist circumference, leisure-time physical activity, resting heart rate, age, cardiovascular risk, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Exercise Test, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Norway, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Fitness, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis

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