Fitness Counseling for the College Woman:
These Are Not Her Mother’s Norms!
By N. Jean Dalton, Dana Ensley, and Julie Wallace
Most university recreation centers offer some form of fitness assessment service
to both their undergraduate and graduate student populations. These assessments typically include evaluation of each of the major fitness components —
cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and
body composition. Following assessment of these components, the student is
informed of his/her fitness classification and receives a recommended exercise
program based on the results. In many instances, the norms used for the fitness
classification of these students are those provided by the American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM), which are based on two separate age-related categories, the under 20 and 20-29 year divisions. Since the average undergraduate and
graduate student is between 17-25 years of age, the ACSM norms do not provide a single normative distribution. In addition, currently used fitness classifications utilize category headings such as poor and fair which may be
disheartening, especially for de-conditioned female students who are already
leery about beginning an exercise program. Therefore, the purpose of this research was two-fold: 1) to determine a single normative distribution for 17-25
year-old college female on a variety of commonly used fitness tests; and 2) to
develop more user-friendly categories for reporting fitness performance. The
intent was to establish more accurate normative data and create a more positive
climate during the post-test consultation in a college or university fitness setting.
The test battery used combined protocols for each of the major components of fitness including the YMCA sub-maximal ergometer test, 1-RM bench
and leg press, curl ups, push ups, trunk flexion, shoulder elevation, and a 3-site
body composition test. Testing was performed on 377 female undergraduate and
graduate students between the ages of 17 and 25. Normative data including
means and standard deviations were determined. In addition, five fitness categories (performance, fitness, healthy, potential risk, and at risk) were established
for each of the tests administered. Category descriptors were designed to help
foster a supportive atmosphere during the post-test consultation. The integra-
19
20
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
tion of these findings into a college-based fitness assessment program may help
to create a more reassuring climate and thus positively impact exercise program
adherence rates of female college students.
M
ost colleges and universities today offer some form of fitness assessment
service to their student population, typically through an academic department of physical education (kinesiology), student health services, and/or
the institution’s recreational program. Many of these programs employ staff or
student personnel whose major responsibility includes fitness assessment of both
undergraduate and graduate students representing a wide range of fitness levels. The battery of fitness tests most commonly recommended for an overview
of a student’s fitness level include evaluation of each of the major fitness components — cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance,
flexibility, and body composition. Once these tests are administered, the student learns his/her fitness category or percentile ranking in each of the major
areas, then receives a recommended exercise program based on those results.
The most frequently referenced fitness categories used when developing exercise prescriptions for individuals between the ages of 20-29 years (1, 2, 4, 11)
were established from data collected by the American College of Sports Medicine (1). These ACSM norms are used extensively to assist fitness personnel in
determining an individual’s potential weaknesses. However, the use of these
general population norms for college students, especially for college-aged women,
poses at least three general concerns. The first is the age difference between the
typical college-aged student and the population on which the currently used
norms were based. Since the ACSM norms were established for a large portion
of the population, their age categories were based by decade (i.e., < 20, between
20-29, 30-39 years of age, etc). Typically, college freshmen, sophomores, and
juniors would be younger than 20 years, and would represent a large percentage of any college population. However, college seniors and graduate students
are typically over the age of 20, but fewer than 25 years of age. Therefore, for
college fitness centers to focus on students between the ages of 17-25 years, the
use of the ACSM norms for the under-20 and 20-29 year-old age groups does
not offer a single normative distribution.
Second, our experience in exercise assessment indicates that scores for college-age females on two tests commonly used as an estimate of muscular strength
(the bench press and leg press), do not exhibit the predicted normal distribution when using the ACSM fitness category for 20 to 29-year-old females.
Instead, college-aged females tended to perform disproportionately in the poor
category on the bench press and in the excellent category on the leg press. These
DALTON, ENSLEY, WALLACE
observations led us to develop new strength norms more appropriate for the
college-aged female population. (3)
A third concern with using the ACSM norms for college females is with the
category labels that were established and continue to be used by many fitness
facilities. Category headings such as fair or poor can be very disheartening for
students who are already leery about beginning an exercise program. Even the
more recent adoption of percentile rankings can be discouraging for students
who score in the lower rankings. If one of the goals of a fitness program were
to motivate and encourage participation, then user-friendly categories would
seem more appropriate. With these concerns in mind, the goal of this research
was two-fold:
1. To determine normative percentile data for college females within the 17
to 25-year-age range on a variety of commonly used fitness tests.
2. To develop more user-friendly categories for reporting fitness performance.
The intent was to establish more accurate normative data, and create a more
positive climate during the post-test consultation in a college and university fitness setting.
Test Procedures
The fitness tests battery focused on tests for each of the major components
of fitness and included the following: cardiovascular endurance (cycle ergometer protocol), muscular strength and endurance (1-RM bench and leg press
tests, and the curl up and push up field tests), flexibility (trunk flexion and
shoulder elevation), and body composition (3-site skinfold technique). These
tests represent protocols used regularly in college and university fitness facilities. The subjects included 377 female undergraduate and graduate volunteers
who were between the ages of 17-25 years of age. Although these volunteers
were students who sought information about their fitness status, they provided
a wide range of reasons for being tested, including weight management, sports’
training, stress management, and overall fitness concerns. All of the participants
completed a full fitness assessment with the university recreation fitness assessment staff at James Madison University. An ACSM-certified supervisor trained
the staff members in charge of the testing, who were also knowledgeable of each
protocol used. Following familiarization with the assessment procedures, each
individual signed an informed consent before performing the tests described
below.
Cardiovascular Endurance Component: A sub-maximal test was used to
determine the norms for cardiovascular endurance. The YMCA cycle ergometer protocol was followed using an 818E Monark cycle ergometer. The YMCA
21
22
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
protocol consists of two to four 3-minute stages during which heart rate and
blood pressure measurements are recorded. Heart rates should be recorded at
the final 15 seconds of each minute of each stage. Blood pressure is also recorded
in the final 30 seconds of the stage. This test is terminated when the subject
reaches a steady state heart rate above 110 beats/min for two stages or 85 percent of estimated maximum. It is also advisable to use an RPE scale and blood
pressure readings to determine any contraindications for continuing the test.
Once a heart rate above 110 beats per-minute is maintained for two stages, a
linear relationship is determined between heart rate and workload. This relationship is used to calculate estimated VO2max, which is extrapolated from the
linear relationship found by plotting heart rates and workload. (4)
Muscular Strength Component – Leg Press and Chest Press: The protocols used for determining upper body and lower body strength were adapted
from the procedures described by Jackson, Watkins, and Patton (5) and recommended by ACSM (1). The student should become familiar with the equipment and the procedure before any testing begins. The equipment used in
establishing our norms was part of the Cybex Classic line, however, any standard line of equipment can be used. In order to avoid possible injury, each
participant should also follow a standardized warm-up period before testing.
Warm-up sets can be established at 50 percent and 75 percent of an estimated
1-RM as suggested by Wathen (12). Once the testing begins, the spotter helps
the student assume the starting position with the arms or legs fully extended.
Following the procedure described in Dalton and Wallace, the student then performs a maximal lift at either the chest (bench), or the leg press stations (3).
Adequate recovery should be allowed between the two tests, using a 2-3 minute
rest interval between trials as suggested by Semenick (11). Once the 1-RM (in
lbs.) has been established for each participant for the bench and leg press, the
scores should be recorded relative to the student’s body weight as follows:
Weight lifted
Body weight
(2)
The values for both the bench and leg press are then recorded as the ratio
value of the weight lifted to the student’s body weight.
Muscular Endurance Component – Curl-Ups: The measurement technique used to estimate muscular endurance was the curl-up field test. In the
past, the full sit-up protocol was most often used for determining muscular
strength, however, recent evidence shows that the partial curl-up protocol is much
safer in preventing potential back injury and is just as effective in estimating a
person’s abdominal endurance. In the starting position, the student lies on her
back with the knees flexed at a 90-degree angle, head off the floor with the chin
DALTON, ENSLEY, WALLACE
approximately 1-2 inches from the chest. In this position, her fingertips should
be touching a strip of masking tape placed perpendicular to the body. After
flattening out the low back region, the individual curls the upper spine until
the fingertips touch a second strip of tape placed 8 cm from and parallel to the
starting tape. The student then uncurls the torso until the scapulae touch the
mat without allowing the head to touch. This form should be maintained
throughout the testing. The student is asked to complete as many curl-ups as
possible in one minute. A complete curl-up is recorded each time the student
touches the second tape strip and returns to the starting position. This test has
been shown to be an effective functional measurement of abdominal strength.
(7)
Muscular Endurance – Push-Ups: The push-up field test is typically administered with females in the modified “knee” position. Therefore, the norms
we have developed have used this position. The females perform the action in
a bent-knee position with buttocks down, back straight, and hands approximately shoulder width apart. A spotter should watch the student closely to ensure
that the proper technique is maintained throughout the test. The student lowers the body until her upper arms are parallel to the floor, and then returns to
the starting position with arms completely extended. This position is different
from the original protocol (chest touching the spotter’s closed fist, which is placed
on the floor beneath the student) to increase the comfort level of the female.
The action should be done in one continual motion. The score is recorded as
the total number of push-ups performed in the proper position until the student reaches exhaustion. (2, 4)
Flexibility Component – Trunk Flexion: Trunk flexion was measured using
the sit and reach technique. The student sits on the floor with his or her legs
extended, shoes off, and toes pointed upward. The feet should be placed approximately 10 – 12 inches apart with the bottom of the feet against the box.
The 15-inch mark of the measure stick is positioned at the edge of the box facing
the participant. The student then places the index fingers of both hands together,
palms down and reaches slowly along the yardstick to the farthest possible
position. Movement should be slow and controlled with no bouncing. The
student should breathe normally during the test and refrain from holding his/
her breath. Three trials are conducted and the best score recorded to the nearest one eighth of an inch. (1)
Flexibility Component – Shoulder Elevation: In order to measure shoulder
elevation, arm length and hand positions must first be determined. The student should stand with both arms to the sides, palms supinated and holding a
yardstick with a loose, but firm grip. The position of the hands on the yardstick is then recorded and used to determine the grip the individual will use
23
24
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
during the test. While maintaining this position, the student’s arm length is
measured in inches from the acromion process to the upper edge of the yardstick and then recorded and used later in the calculations. Once arm length has
been measured, the student lies on the floor in a prone position with her arms
straight forward gripping the yardstick (palms down) at the same positions
marked earlier. The student raises the stick upward as high as possible while
keeping the chin on the floor and the elbows and wrists straight. The distance
from the stick to the floor is then recorded in inches. The score for shoulder
elevation is determined by multiplying the best of three trials by 100 and dividing the product by the arm length as follows:
Stick height X 100
Arm length
(1)
Body Composition Measurements: Body composition was determined
using the three-site skinfold measurements as described by ACSM. (1) All the
body composition measurements were taken on the right side of the student’s
body using a Lange caliper. The females were tested at the triceps, suprailiac
and the anterior thigh. (2) Values from the three sites were totaled and body
fat percentage was estimated using the tables developed by Pollock, Schmidt
and Jackson. (9)
Determination of the Norms and Categories: The completed data was used
to establish normative rankings for the female students, including determination of means and standard deviations for each of the tests selected. The data
was also used to calculate test categories to assist fitness personnel in their analysis.
The healthy category was established by calculating one standard deviation
around the mean score. Subsequent categories above and below the healthy
category were calculated as one standard deviation above or below the mean
score in each of the respective categories. The highest and lowest categories were
established as two standard deviations above the respective mean score.
Our experience shows that category labels can be instrumental in determining
the atmosphere of a post-test consultation. This is especially true for female students who may be particularly sensitive about their body image. Category descriptors such as poor or obese are frequently interpreted by the student as a
near-hopeless situation and can create a very negative motivational climate. On
the other hand, generalized category labels such as average or needs work can
be difficult for a student to personalize and thus may not be helpful in motivating a student to start an exercise program. After years of testing, we have found
that the labels and norm descriptors identified here best foster a productive and
motivating atmosphere during the post-test consultation. These category labels
can effectively convey the student’s strengths and challenges without creating
DALTON, ENSLEY, WALLACE
undue negative connotations. Therefore, it is recommended that college or
university fitness personnel use these category labels when discussing a student’s
fitness level.
Norm descriptors specific to each fitness component have been provided.
The categories of performance, fitness, and healthy are generalized for cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility as
follows:
Performance: A female in this category has the ability to take on the demands of daily life, including vigorous physical activities such as athletics or
training for a specific sporting event. She can accommodate unexpected physiological stress without undue fatigue and may benefit from a higher quality of
life.
Fitness: A female in this category has the ability to take on the demands of
daily life as well as moderate to vigorous physical activity and unexpected stress
without undue fatigue.
Healthy: A female in this category has the baseline requirements to reduce
her risk of chronic disease and lower her incidence of musculoskeletal injuries.
The categories of potential risk, at risk, potential limitations and limitations
vary for each fitness component and have been described separately. In addition, the body composition norms were developed separately due to the unique
physiological characteristics associated with that fitness component.
Fitness Norms & Norm Descriptors for College Women
Norms for Cardiovascular Endurance (ml/kg/min)
CATEGORY
ML/KL/MIN
PERFORMANCE
≥ 50.7
Fitness
40.8 – 50.6
Healthy
31 – 40.7
*Potential Risk
21 – 30.9
*At Risk
≤ 20.9
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL RISK: Potential risk for health problems including, but not limited
to, CHD, vascular disease, and hypertension that are directly or indirectly related to inactivity.
AT RISK: A high risk for health problems including, but not limited to, CHD, vascular disease, and hypertension, which are related directly or indirectly to inactivity.
25
26
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
Norms for Leg Press Ratio (weight lifted/body weight)
CATEGORY
RATIO
PERFORMANCE
≥ 2.17
Fitness
1.92 – 2.16
Healthy
1.69 – 1.91
*Potential Limitations
1.25 – 1.68
*Limitations
≤ 1.24
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Potential weaknesses in legs may lead to difficulty
in climbing stairs or walking for an extended period.
LIMITATIONS: Weaknesses may lead to difficulty in supporting body weight, stair
climbing, and rising from a seated position.
Norms for Chest Press Ratio (weight lifted/body weight)
CATEGORY
RATIO
PERFORMANCE
≥ 1.25
Fitness
.99 – 1.24
Healthy
.74 – .98
*Potential Limitations
.49 – .73
*Limitations
≤ .48
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Potential limitations in the chest region may lead to
difficulty in tasks that require a pushing motion (lawn mowing, vacuuming, opening a door).
LIMITATIONS: Limitations in the chest region have a high risk of difficulty performing
tasks that require a pushing motion (lawn mowing, vacuuming, opening a door).
Norms for Curl-Ups (number)
CATEGORY
TOTAL
PERFORMANCE
≥ 86
Fitness
65 – 85
Healthy
44 – 65
*Potential Limitations
23 – 43
*Limitations
≤ 22
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Potential limitations in the abdominal region may lead
to low back problems due to the inability to hold the torso in an ergonomically
correct position.
LIMITATIONS: Limitations in the abdominal region have a high risk for low back
problems leading to postural misalignment and muscular tightness and fatigue.
DALTON, ENSLEY, WALLACE
Norms for Push-Ups (number)
CATEGORY
TOTAL
PERFORMANCE
≥ 53
Fitness
38 – 52
Healthy
23 – 37
*Potential Limitations
8 – 22
*Limitations
≤7
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Inability to support the body weight, possibly leading
to postural difficulties.
LIMITATIONS: Inability to support the body weight, possibly leading to postural
problems and difficulty in performing daily activities requiring the use of the upper
body over an extended period of time.
Norms for Trunk Flexion (inches)
CATEGORY
INCHES
PERFORMANCE
≥ 25.76
Fitness
22.76 – 25.75
Healthy
19.76 – 22.75
*Potential Limitations
16.76 – 19.75
*Limitations
≤ 16.75
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Potential limitations in the lower back region due to
the low range of motion.
LIMITATIONS: Low back problems, including the risk of injury and postural misalignment, may lead to muscle tightness and fatigue.
Norms for Shoulder Elevation (best measurement (in) x100)
CATEGORY
SCORE
PERFORMANCE
≥ 99
Fitness
75 – 98.9
Healthy
51 – 74.9
*Potential Risk
27 – 50.9
*Limitations
≤ 26.9
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS: Potential limited range of motion in the shoulder region.
LIMITATIONS: Limited range of motion in the shoulder region causing the inability
to perform tasks above head and shoulder level.
27
28
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
Norms for Body Composition
CATEGORY
PERCENT
MINIMAL NEEDED
12-13.9%
Performance
14-16.6%
Fitness
16.7-19.9%
Healthy
20-25.9%
Potential Risk
26-30.9%
At Risk
> 31.0%
SPECIFIC NORM DESCRIPTORS
MINIMAL NEEDED: Body fat percentage at this level is considered essential to
the body’s basic physiological functions. Having an extremely low level of body
fat may lead to physiological complications such as risk of heart or other major organ failure. In females, low body fat percentages may also result in loss
of menses and an early onset of osteoporosis.
PERFORMANCE/FITNESS: This range has been divided into two descriptive
norms. The lower level of the range designates the body fat percentage that
represents a “fit” individual. The upper level of the range represents the optimal body fat percentage recommended to per form in certain sport-related activities.
HEALTHY: At this level of body fat, a female may be free from diseases that are
directly or indirectly linked to fat in the body (see those listed under the potential risk category).
POTENTIAL RISK: This level of body fat may create potential risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other health problems, which
may be related directly or indirectly to the level of body fat.
AT RISK: This level of body fat is indicative of a very high risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and other health problems, which
are directly or indirectly related to the level of body fat.
An Explanation of the Norms and Categories
It has been our experience that if descriptions and explanations are not given
during the post-test consultation, the student tends to assume the worst about
herself and her low fitness scores. Therefore, we recommend that college and
university fitness assessment personnel use the category labels and descriptors
provided. It is also helpful to let a student know that test performance is compared only to population norms for developing her exercise prescription. Although the norm labels can be useful in giving a general picture of the student’s
fitness level, true success is seen when students focus on improving personal
baseline scores.
Note: The research was done based on the Fifth edition of the ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing & Prescription. The Sixth edition recommends a change
in the protocol for the curl-up test. Depending on which edition of the ACSM’s
recommended fitness tests you use, will determine if you will utilize the norms
DALTON, ENSLEY, WALLACE
and categories listed in this article. Future research will determine if the Sixth
edition of the ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing & Prescription applies to
the college-aged female.
Summary
Today’s college student is aware of the importance that fitness plays in his/
her total well-being. Most university recreation facilities have become sensitive
to that awareness and now offer fitness assessments as a part of its regular services. In order to ensure that students will adhere to a prescribed exercise program, it is important that the fitness assessment is accurate and that the
consultation experience provides a positive learning experience. This is particularly true for the female college student who is sensitive about her physical
appearance.
Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine more accurate normative data for the college female population, including both undergraduate
and graduate students within the ages of 17-25 years. In addition, we have tried
to develop more user-friendly categories for reporting fitness performance in
the hopes of improving the post-test consultation experience. By integrating
this process into your fitness assessment program, a more positive climate and
working relationship with your clients may be created. This may go a long way
towards positively affecting exercise program adherence rates of your female
college students.
29
30
RECREATIONAL SPORTS JOURNAL • VOL 26 • NO 1
REFERENCES
American College of Sports Medicine. (1995).
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and
Prescription (5th ed). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
American College of Sports Medicine. (1998).
ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription (3rd ed).
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Feibger.
Dalton, J. and J. Wallace. (1996). Strength
Testing Protocol and Norms for College-Aged
Females. Strength and Conditioning, 18(2),
7-10.
Howley, E. T. and B. D. Franks. (1997). Health
Fitness Instructor Handbook (3rd ed).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, A., M. Watkins, and R. Patton.
(1980). A factor analysis of twelve selected
maximal isotonic strength performances on
the universal gym. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 12, 274.
Jackson, A.S., Pollock, M. L. and A. Ward.
(1980). Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Medicine and
Science in Spor ts and Exercise, 12, 175182.
MacFarlane, P. (1993). Out with the sit-up, in
with the curl-up. Journal of Health, Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 64 (6),
62-66.
McArdle, W.D., F.I. Katch, and V.L. Katch.
(1991). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Per formance (3rd ed).
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
M.L. Pollock, D.H. Schmidt and A.S. Jackson.
(1980). Measurement of cardiorespiratory
fitness and body composition in a clinical
setting. Comprehensive Therapy, 6 (9), 1227.
Pultz, Robin A. (1993). The importance of muscular strength for college females and a comparison of results to the standard national
norms. Unpublished manuscript, James
Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA.
Semenick, D. M. (1994). Testing protocols and
procedures. In T. R. Baechle (ed), Essentials
of Strength Training and Conditioning (pp.
258-273). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wathen, D. (1994). Load assignment. In T.R.
Belche (ed.), Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (pp. 435-446).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Dr. Nola Jean Dalton is a Professor in Exercise Physiology at James Madison University and has
been teaching at the college level for more than 30 years. She coached women’s basketball
at the University of Texas early in her career, and was the women’s fencing coach at James
Madison University for 15 years before becoming the Graduate Coordinator of Kinesiology and
Recreation Studies. Her hobbies include kayaking and fishing.
Dana Ensley, M.S., the Coordinator of Fitness and Nutrition in University Recreation at James
Madison University (JMU), is an adjunct instructor in the Kinesiology Department. She has taught
General Education Kinesiology courses, developed and taught a Fitness Management and Personal Training Course, and ACSM HFI. She received a master’s from JMU in 1996 and has been
a professional in the field for six years. A NIRSA member for seven years, she served on the
National Fitness Committee 2000-’01 and is serving on the Planning Committee for the 2003
Fitness Symposium in San Diego, CA.
Julie Wallace, M.S., Associate Director for Programming, is in her tenth year at James Madison University. Her background is in commercial fitness, corporate health and campus recreation. She is presently working on her doctorate in the Executive Leadership Program at George
Washington University.