Title Page:
Introduction:
In order to directly measure a subject’s VO2max, a maximal graded exercise test to
exhaustion is performed using an ergometer. Rather than directly measure a subject’s VO2max,
one can use the linear relationship between the heart rate and workload to indirectly measure
the corresponding oxygen consumption. On this basis, a subject’s sub-maximal heart rate
response to a given workload is extrapolated to the maximum heart rate and the corresponding
oxygen cost is calculated. The aim of this experiment is to use the Astrand-Rhyming and 20
meter shuttle run tests to measure sub-maximal heart rates of given workloads and estimate a
subject’s VO2max.
Methods:
Materials: Refer to “Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education Laboratory One:
Prediction of VO2max Field Tests” for experimental materials.
Procedures:
Astrand-Rhyming Cycle ergometer test: The subject performs on a bicycle ergometer and begins
with a two minute warm-up at 50rpm with no resistance. The seat height is adjusted so that the
leg is slightly bent when the pedal is at its lowest point. Depending on the subject’s gender, a
range of power outputs, between 75-100 Watts for women and between 100-150 Watts for
men, are assigned for 6 minutes in order to achieve a heart rate response between 120-150
beats per minute. The subject’s heart rate was measured each minute and the average heart
rate of the 5th and 6th minute was considered the steady state heart rate.
Table 1. Astrand-Rhyming Cycle ergometer test - Participant information
Name
M.S R.A
A.K B.K
A.W.V C.M
Age
20
20
20 20
20
20
Gender
Female Female Male Female Male Female
Weight (Kg)
50
56
71.3 65.32 67.36 53
Total Resistance (Kg)
1.2
1.5
1
3
3
1.2
Average Heart Rate (bpm) 153
141.5 137.5 145.5 150 143
20 meter shuttle run test: The subject begins by warming up for 5 minutes after which they
position themselves at the beginning of the 20m course. At the starting signal emitted from a
pre-recorded tape, the subject runs to the end of the course and touches the 20m line
simultaneously with the sound emitted from the tape. Subsequently, the subject returns to the
beginning of the course and touches the 20m line simultaneously with the sound emitted from
the tape. The subject repeats this procedure while the tape increases the frequency of emitted
sounds until the subject reaches volitional fatigue, at which point a partner records the last
stage completed.
Table 2. 20 meter shuttle run test - Participant information
Name
C.R B.R
P.L S.V V.P.H C.P
Age
20 20
20 25 20
20
Gender
Male Female Male Male Female Female
Weight (Kg) 88.6 50.9 75 83.91 57.4 51
Level
7
7
10 9
9
5
Results:
Table 1: Barbara’s Heart Rate during Phases of Astrand-Rhyming Cycle Ergometer Test
Minute
At Rest
Warm-up
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
Exercise
Cool-down
Heart Rate (beats/min.)
74
104
96
100
133
139
141
141
148
143
110
103
103
Table 1 shows the heart rate readings for Barbara during the phases of the Astrand-Rhyming
cycle ergometer test.
Table 2: Class Data with Calculations and Predicted VO2max for Subjects Performing the
Astrand-Rhyming Cycle Ergometer Test
Subject
Name
Gender
Age
(yrs)
Subject
Weight
(kg)
Resistance
(kg)
Avg
Heart
Rate
(bpm)
Power
Output
(W)
Workload
(kg*m/
min)
Pred.
VO2
max
(L/min)
CM
AWV
Barb
AK
Rosi
F
M
F
F
F
20
20
20
20
20
53
67.36
65.32
71.3
56
1.2
3
3
1
1.5
143
150
145.5
137.5
141.5
58.82353
147.0588
147.0588
49.01961
73.52941
360
900
900
300
450
2.1
3.0
3.7
2.1
2.4
Average
Pred.
VO2 max
Age
Corrected
(L/min)
2.205
3.15
3.885
2.205
2.52
2.793
Pred.
VO2max
mL/
(kg*min)
41.60377
46.76366
59.47642
30.92567
45.00000
44.7539
Female:
44.25147
Male:
46.76366
Table 2 shows the combined class data collected for all subjects with Calculations, Predicted
VO2max, and Standard Error of Measurement for Subjects Performing the Astrand-Rhyming Cycle
Ergometer Test. See Sample Calculations for calculation details.
SEM
(mL/
(kg*min))
4.59345
5.894537
0.000000
Table 3: Class Data with Calculations and Predicted VO2max for Subjects Performing the 20m
Shuttle Run Test
Name
Gender
CP
VPH
Shawn
PL
Bianca
Chris
F
F
M
M
F
M
Age (yrs)
20
20
25
20
20
20
Weight
(kg)
Stage
Reached
51
57.4
83.91
75
50.9
88.6
5
9
9
10
7
7
MAS
(km/h)
10.5
12.5
12.5
13
11.5
11.5
Predicted
VO2max
(mL/(kg*min))
38.6
50.6
50.6
53.6
44.6
44.6
Average
(mL/(kg*min))
47.1
Female: 44.6
Male: 49.6
Table 3 shows the combined class data collected for all subjects with Calculations, Predicted
VO2max, and Standard Error of Measurement for Subjects Performing the 20m Shuttle Run Test.
See Sample Calculations for calculation details.
Figure 1: Average Predicted VO2 max Measured with
Astrand-Rhyming Cycle Ergometer Test and 20m Shuttle
Run Test
Average VO2max Predicted (mL/(kg*min))
60
50
40
Subjects Measured by
Astrand -Rhyming Cycle
Ergometer Test
30
Subjects Measured by 20m
Shuttle Run Test
20
10
0
Measure Used
Figure 1 shows the Average Predicted VO2 max Measured with Astrand-Rhyming Cycle
Ergometer Test and 20m Shuttle Run Test with Standard Error of Measurement.
SEM
(mL/
(kg*min))
2.247221
3.464102
2.645751
Preicted VO2 max (mL/(kg*min))
Figure 2: Average Predicted VO2 max Measured with
Astrand-Rhyming Cycle Ergometer Test and 20m Shuttle
Run Test by Gender
60
50
40
Female Subject Average
30
Male Subject Average
20
10
0
Astrand-Rhyming C.E.T.
Figure 2 shows the Average Predicted VO2 max Measured with Astrand-Rhyming Cycle
Ergometer Test and 20m Shuttle Run Testby Gender with Standard Error of Measurement.
Figure 3: Class Average Predicted VO2 max Versus Normative VO2 max
Values by Age and Gender
VO2 max (mL/(kg*min))
60
50
40
Class Average
30
Normative Average
20
10
0
20 Year-Old Males
Group
Figure 3 shows the comparison of average predicted VO2 for the three age/gender groups
studied in the class with their respective normative average values. Error bars for the Class
Average Values denote Standard Error of Measurement and error bars for Normative Average
denote peripheries of the Normative Average Ranges.
Sample Calculations:
1. Predicted VO2max For Barb:
Average Heart-Rate:
= (HR at 5 min+HR at 6 min)/2
= (148bpm+ 143 bpm)/2
= 145.5 bpm
Workload
= (50rpm)(6m)(Resistance)
= (50rpm)(6m)(3kg)
= 900 kg*m/min
Power Output
= Workload/6.12
= (900 kg*m/min)/6.12
= 147.0588 W
Pred. VO2max Age Correction
= (Pred. VO2max)(1.05)
= (3.7 L/min)(1.05)
= 3.885 L/min
Pred. VO2max in mL/(kg*min)
= (Pred. VO2max Age Corrected)(1000)/(Subject Body Weight)
= (3.885 L/min)(1000)/(65.32)
= 59.47642 mL/(kg*min)
Average Pred. VO2max
= (Σ Pred. VO2max)/5
= (41.60377 + 46.76366 + 59.47642 + 30.92567 + 45.00000)/5
= 44.7539 mL/(kg*min)
Standard Error of
Measurement
= Standard Deviation(Pred. VO2max For all Subjects in Test)/SQRT(5)
= 4.59345 mL/(kg*min)
Discussion:
Discuss the assumptions and main limitations of these protocols when compared to a directly
measured VO2max.
When observing both tests, one has to take the mechanical efficiencies of both the individual
and equipment involved. The bikes in the lab had different characteristics, for example, the
baskets holding the weights. Some bikes had one basket, while others had two baskets. Each
basket accounted for 0.5 kg, therefore one could not assume that they were the same piece of
machinery. Aside from the individual differences of each bike, one must put into consideration
how well kept the bikes are, in terms of their functioning abilities. A bike functioning better then
another bike, will be easier to ride on. Another limitation is the clothing and shoes each
individual was wearing. There are different types of shoes, some lighter, some heavier, and
different types of clothes, again some lighter, some heavier. The differences of equipment can
limit the individual and their results. As for individuals, one cannot differentiate strictly by
weight and age. Just because a person is younger, one cannot assume they are in better shape.
The individual could have a physical limitations, such as asthma, or a broken foot. Finally,
running could be harder for an individual in comparison to riding a bike, therefore causing their
VO2 max to be higher on one test versus another. The directly measured VO2 max protocol
although more expensive and pervasive, would diminish any of these discrepancies and allow
for a much more accurate assessment of VO2 max.
QS: How do the average values compare to the normative values? What does this say about the
males and females that were tested on these protocols?
ANS:
In comparison to the normative value, the average predicted VO2max value of our 20 year old
females performing the Astrand-Rhyming Cycle Ergometer test was 44.25 mL/(kg*min), which is
categorized as being “good” on a scale ranging from very poor to excellent. The predicted
VO2max value for A.W.V., our 20 year old male subject, was 46.76 mL/(kg*min), which is
categorized as “average” on the same scale. In terms of the 20m Shuttle Run Test, the average
predicted VO2max value of our 20 year old females was 44.6 mL/(kg*min), which is categorized
as “good” on the scale. The average predicted VO2max value of our 20 year old males was 49.1
mL/(kg*min), which is categorized as “average”. The predicted VO2max value of S.V., our 25
year old male subject, was 50.6, which categorizes him as “good” if you round up on the same
scale. These results, when compared to the normative values, inform us that the females tested
on these protocols have a higher VO2max than that of the average 20 year old female, and
subsequently are at a higher aerobic fitness level than the average. In contrast, the males tested
on these protocols have an average VO2max value, and subsequently an average aerobic fitness
level (Shvartz, E., & Reibold, R.C., 1990).
There are many different methods we can use in order to predict a subject’s VO2 max
with their advantages as well as disadvantages. For instance, we used two different tests: the
Astrand rhyming test and the 20 meter shuttle run test. Furthermore, the protocols carried out
by researchers during these tests vary as well.
For example, R.E. Cink and T.R. Thomas’ (1981) paper the Validity of the Astrand-Rhyming
Nomogram for Predicting Maximal Oxygen Intakeuses the Astrand Rhyming test. However, our
protocols are slightly different. The subjects used by Cink and Thomas (1981) were all males of
approximately the same age, height, and weight. This is advantageous since it eliminates
variables that might cause a subject to yield a more different result. On the other hand, it does
not allow us to understand if the test is valid for women since, unlike our experiments, no
females were used in the study. Cink and Thomas (1981) were also able to use a greater number
of subjects allowing them to have a better estimate of maximal oxygen consumption because
the as the sample size approaches the population size the better estimates of that population
you will have. It is also important to note that the subjects used the same brand of cycle
ergometer while in our laboratory they did not. They, therefore, do not have to take into
account that different bikes might be mechanically different and cause more variations in the
results. However, their protocol did not include the warm-up stage which might have prevented
the subject from getting used to the bike and could have altered their performance. These
differences would lead me to believe that the protocol performed in the literature is more valid
due to the controlled variables like gender and weight as well as the greater sample size. This
allows Cink and Thomas to eliminate variables that might cause greater differences in subject’s
maximum oxygen consumption levels.
As for the 20 meter shuttle run test we can compare the protocol of our experiment to the one
performed by Ruiz, Silva, N. Oliveira, Ribiero, J. Oliveira and Mota (2009) in their paper Criterionrelated validity of the 20-m shuttle run test in youths aged 13–19 years. The main differences
between our protocol and the one used in their paper was, firstly, the test results were
measured in units of half a level while in our lab we only measured in single levels. This means
that, for example, even if subject 1 completed half a level more than subject 2, they would still
end up with the same maximum oxygen intake capacity. This would make the results in our lab
less accurate than if we would have taken into account half levels. Secondly, the subjects of Ruiz
et al. (2009) study were familiar with the 20 meter shuttle test beforehand. The subjects had
practiced the test twice in the week leading to the study. Moreover they were told to “refrain
from strenuous exercise in the 48 h before testing” (Ruiz et al., 2009). Hence, the protocol used
by Ruiz et al. is more valid since it makes use of more accurate measurements and since it
allowed the subjects to be better prepared for the test and, therefore, better reach their
maximum.
References
Cink, R.E., Thomas, T.R. (1981). Validity of the Astrand Rhyming Nomogram for Predicting
Maximal Oxygen Intake. Brit. J. Sports Med. 15(3), 182-185.
Ruiz, J.R., Silva, G., Oliveira, N., Ribeiro, J.C., Oliveira, J.F. and Mota,J. (2009). Criterion-related
validity of the 20-m shuttle run test in youths aged 13-19 years'. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27(9). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410902902835
DISCUSION Of the 2 procedures used in this laboratory experience which do you think is the
most valid and why?
The 20 meter shuttle run is the most valid procedure compared to the Astrand-Rhyming cycle
ergometer test in this laboratory experience. The shuttle run is a field test which has more
validity because it uses a graded protocol which gradually compels the subjects to increase the
exercise intensity until the pace of the exercise can no longer be kept. Therefore, one variable
which is controlled is the pace of the exercise, whereas the pace on the bike in the cycle test
was difficult to control and varied greatly. In fact, constantly pedalling at 50 rpm without
changing the pace is difficult and improbable. Also, because the only equipment used in the run
was the pre-recorded tape and cassette player this limited the equipment from being a source
of error, whereas in the Astrand-Rhyming test the different bikes and heart rate monitors were
important sources of error. The bikes did not all work the same and the heart rate monitors
often fluctuated randomly during the cycle test. This leads to the fact that using heart rate to
assess VO2 max can lead to errors. Additionally, heart rate response tests such as the AstrandRhyming cycle test are sub maximal thus assumptions are needed to construct regression
formulas to predict one’s VO2 max. The 20 meter shuttle run is a better predictor, for it does
not rely on one’s heart rate which can be affected by factors such as one’s stress and caffeine
levels.
Conclusion:
References:
Appendix - Raw Data: