VOomax eStimation from a submaximal 1-mile track jog for fit college-age individuals JAMES D. GEORGE, PAT R. VEHRS, PHILLIP E, ALLSEN, GILBERT W. FELLINGHAM, and A. GARTH FISHER Department of Physical Education, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602 ABSTRACT GEORGE, J. D, PR. VEHRS, P. E. ALLSEN, G. W. FEL- LINGHAM, and A. G. FISHER. VOsmu estimation from a submax- imal I-mile trac jog for fit college-age individuals. Med. Sei. Sports Exere., Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 401-406, 1993. The primary purpose of this stady was fo develop a submaximal fed test forthe estimation ‘of maximal oxygen uptake (VOsmu) using a I-mile track jog. A second purpose was to determine the accuracy of the 1.S-mile Fun in estimating, VOana for both male and female subjects. Vo measured in 149 relatively fit college students (males = 88, females = 61) 18-29 yr using a treadmill protocol (mean 2 SD; YOamn = 47.7 6.3 ml-kg"!-min”?). Multiple regression analysis (N= $4) to ‘estimate VOzma from the submaximal, steady-state {mile track jog yielded the following validation (V) model (tg = 0.87, SEE = 3.0 ‘l-kg"!-min""): VOana = 100.5 + 8.344 * GENDER (0 = feral = male) ~ 0.1636 * BODY MASS (ka) ~ 1.438 * JOG TIME (min mile") = 0.1928 * HEART RATE (bpm). To help ensure that a submaximal level of exertion was realized for the I-mile track jog, lapsed jog time was resiricted to 8.0 min for males and 29.0 min for females and exercise HR to =180 bpm. Cross-vaidation (CV) of the Lomile tack jog comparing observed and estimated VOtnac (N= 52) resulted in fog = 0.88 SEE = 3.1 mlokg"smin-", Multiple repression analysis (W = 50} to estimate VOsem from the I-S-mile run (V; N= 49, ny = 0.90, SEE = 28 ml-kg-min"!; CV: N= 47, as = 082, SEE ~'39 ml-ke™'-min), used elapsed run time, body ‘mas, and gender as independent variables, The results indicate that ‘submaximal I-mile track jog can accurately predict VOoma and is 4 viable alternative to maximal performance tests such as the 1.5: mile run. JOGGING, HEART RATE, SUBMAXIMAL FIELD TEST, ‘VOsmus PREDICTION, AEROBIC POWER is the direct measurement of maximum oxygen uptake (VOsmes) during a graded exercise test (GXT) (29), However, despite a high level of accuracy, direct measurement VOznax tests are primarily reserved for the laboratory setting because of costly equipment, the need for trained technicians, time-constraints, and the inability to test large numbers of people at one time. T: ‘most accurate assessment of aerobic capacity ‘a1ss9151p37sts.a4083090 [MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE CCopriht © 193by the Amesan Calle Spr Medloe ‘Suite or putliaon January 1982, ‘Accent fo palin Jl 1992 = Because of the problems associated with direct VO2mx measurements, a multitude of prediction tests, have been devised, Most prediction tests are submaxi- mal in nature, utilize a high percentage of muscle mass, and require approximately 6-12 min of continuous work, Prediction test protocols, to date, involve bench stepping (16,17,23), cycle ergometry (5,13,18,21,28), treadmill walking (6,12,15,23), and track walking and running (9,11,14,19,20,26). The accuracy of various VOsmex estimation tests has been reviewed by Kline et, al, (19). The practical utility of VOzmax prediction tests may be evaluated on the basis of four considerations: 1) accuracy and validity of the prediction; 2) ease and convenience of the testing protocol; 3) relative risk of injury to the subject; and 4) generalized application to a broad population (19). A review of past research regarding VOzma prediction tests reveals that most studies have failed to present cross-validation results (9,13,14,21,26), and many have provided no measure of the standard error of estimate (SEE) (9,1 1,14,15,20).. Inaddition, some prediction tests may be too strenuous and relatively unsafe for individuals with low functional, capacities (9,15,26). In the college setting, the 1.5-mile run is commonly used to estimate aerobic capacity (1). The rationale for this test appears to be based on practicality, in that large numbers of people can be tested at one time. However, other considerations make general use of the 1.5-mile run questionable, For instance, the accuracy and validity of the 1.5-mile run protocol has not been. determined for both male and female populations. A similar test, Cooper’s 12-min run, has received consid- erable attention; however, studies involving homoge- neous and heterogeneous populations have yielded a wide range of correlation coefficients (r = 0.13 to r= 0.90) when comparing predicted VO2ma with direct, VOomax measurements (8,1 1,14,20). Furthermore, little information is available regarding the SEE for track running field tests, In terms of the relative risk of injury,402. oficial Journal of the American College of Sports MedieIne the 1.5-mile run may pose additional concern. For example, prior to the 1.5-mile test, subjects are in- structed to “run as fast as possible” or “give maximum effort” and as a result untrained individuals may have difficulty running at a proper pace. Also, high intensity exercise has been associated with greater cardiovascular risk and orthopedic injury to the foot, ankle, and knee 2). Recently, Kline et al. (19) developed a 1-mile track walk using multiple linear regression analysis and em- ployed elapsed walk time, exercise heart rate (HR), age, gender, and body mass as independent variables to predict VO2m- Based on their results, the I-mile track walk appears relatively accurate (r = 0.88; SEE = 5.0 ml-kg™!-min~'), safe, and convenient. However, the utility ofthis test in the college setting may be somewhat limited since the age range used to develop the I-mile track walk regression equation included subjects aged 30-69 yr. The primary purpose of this study was to develop a | -mile track jog for the college setting that requires only ‘a moderate, submaximal level of exertion, demonstrates acceptable accuracy in estimating VOzmax, and is easy to administer. A second purpose was to determine the accuracy of the 1.3-mile run in estimating VO2max for both male and female college students, METHODS Subjects One hundred-forty-nine college students (males = 88, females = 61), aged 18-29 yr, were recruited for this study. Prior to testing subjects completed a brief questionnaire designed to screen for cardiovascular contraindications to maximal exercise. Informed con- sent documents were signed by all subjects in accord- ance with Brigham Young University human subject review committee guidelines, Testing Procedures All 149 subjects performed a maximal treadmill GXT; however, not all subjects performed both the 1- mile track jog and 1.5-mile run. Of the 149 subjects, 106 subject performed the I-mile track jog and 96 subjects performed the 1.5-mile run. Since the I-mile track jog was a submaximal, steady-state test, it was always performed first if the maximal treadmill GXT was performed on the same day. To minimize possible fatigue effects, the 1.5-mile run was performed on a different day than the I-mile track jog and maximal treadmill GXT. Subjects completed all tests within a 2- wk period of time, and there was always at least 48 h between any two successive test days. The order of the maximal treadmill GXT and the 1.5-mile run was MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE balanced to control for an order effect. Body mass for each subject (wearing only light jogging clothing and no shoes) was measured and recorded on the initial day of testing. Exercise HRs were measured with an elec- tronic monitoring system (Polar, Stamford, CT) for both the maximal treadmill GXT and I-mile track jog. An earlier study (19) verified the accuracy of the exer- cise HR monitor. Maximal treadmill GXT. VO2max was determined us- ing a treadmill protocol consisting of jogging at a self- selected speed (approximately 5-7 mph), with a 2.5% increase in grade every minute. A 3-min warm-up jog at a level grade preceded the graded portion of the ‘treadmill protocol. The test was terminated when the subject could no longer continue despite verbal encour- agement. Expired volumes were measured with a Ven- tilation Measurement Module (SensorMedics, Yorba Linda, CA) and passed through a 3-1 mixing chamber where %O2 and %CO: were determined by a mass spectrometer (Marquette, St. Louis, MO). Oxygen con- sumption (Oz) values were calculated and printed every four breaths using an online computer program (Consentius Technologies, Salt Lake City, UT). The treadmill GXT was considered maximal if two of the following three criteria were achieved: 1) leveling off of WOs despite an increase in work; 2) respiratory ex- change ratio (RER) =1.1; and 3) HR no more than 15 beats below age-predicted maximal HR (HRmay). Exer- cise HR values were recorded each minute and upon conclusion of the maximal treadmill GXT. One-mile track jog. The I-mile track jog protocol required subjects to self-select a steady, submaximal level of exertion. Because subjects tended to run too fast during preliminary tests, pacing and exercise HR limits were established that restricted elapsed jog time to 28.0 min for males and 29.0 min for females and ending exercise HR to <180 bpm, Subjects (NV = 3) who failed to satisfy these criteria were dropped from the study. A 2- to 3-min warm-up jog preceded the timed 1- mile track jog to help subjects achieve a proper sub- maximal jogging pace and exercise HR. For instance, on a 440-yd- track subjects were instructed to jog so that the warm-up lap took at least 2.0 min for males and 2.25 min for females, If exercise HRs were =180 bpm following the warm-up subjects were advised to Jog at a slower speed. When warm-up pacing and HR values were acceptable, subjects were then instructed to: 1) jog the I-mile distance at a steady pace and 2) sustain a comfortable, submaximal level of exertion. To confirm that each subject maintained a steady pace, a test administrator monitored the elapsed time and exercise HR of each lap. At the conclusion of the I-mile track jog, exercise HR, elapsed jog time, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE, 15-point scale) (7) were recorded.SUBMAXIMAL TRACK JOG 4.5-Mile run. The 1.5-mile run protocol required subjects to run the prescribed distance as fast as possi- ble. However, subjects were advised to pace themselves in order that they might run at an optimal speed. At the conclusion of the 1.5-mile run, elapsed time was recorded. Two indoor (244- and 357-yd) and one outdoor tracks (440-yd) were used for this study. Track distances were verified with a measurement wheel (Rolatape, Spokane, WA). When the outdoor track was used, environmental conditions were similar to that of the indoor tracks in that wind was negligible, and ambient temperature and relative humidity were between 20- 25°C and 20-50%, respectively. Statistical Analysis Approximately half of the subjects within each pre~ diction test group (1.5-mile run, N = 96; 1-mile track jog, N = 106) were randomly assigned to either a validation (V) or cross-validation (CV) group. Predic- tion equations for estimating VOzmax Were developed for the I-mile track jog and 1.5-mile run using data generated from each V group. These equations were then cross-validated with the CV groups using Pearson product moment correlations and standard errors of Official oumal of the American Cologe of Sports Medicine 403 estimate (SEE) to compare observed and estimated VOsmax. The estimated VOzpax values were also re: gressed on the observed VOomac values to evaluate whether intercepts and slopes exhibited significant de- viation from 0 and 1, respectively. Statistical signifi- cance was set at P< 0.05. RESULTS Descriptive statistics for the V and CV groups involv- ing the I-mile track jog and 1.5-mile run are presented in Table 1. Regression Equations Derived From the Vali Group Validation group regression equations and accom- panying adjusted r-values (rag) and SEEs for the [-mile track jog and 1.5-mile run are presented in Table 2. Age and height were not found to be important in the prediction of VOzmax and therefore were not used in either validation model. For the one-mile track jog (N 4) relative and absolute VOzmax estimation equa- tions yielded a rag = 0.87 and SEE 3.0 ml-kg”'-min™ and a rag, = 0.94 and SEE = 0.22 |-min™', respectively. ‘TABLE 1. Descriptive characterises of V and CV groups for he tle recog an Sern ean $0). ‘ge Height Mass Haw Vp Tine wR Group on (a) a) (erm) (ekg) in) (com) ‘nem wack og Vv Tota 24227 Theo BTS 1921473 485261 taoz14 1702264 2227 «179201 38H TT 192927 503245 9413 168559 m322 © terzOt = 2182 «19.478 M6e41 topi3 72=T4 4229 173401 SNA 1918463 413259 gsz12 10489 9x31 17BxO1 «RTA 19224 BT 50353 9208 1677293 21625 16501 © GREG 19. HSB 26292 «= 1081916982 66 15Mlerun v Total w = 49) 5400 17301 «ST BeIOA Ths BS 48164 1017 MoesW=26 272117801 «= T4380 HS BS 51B=53, agai Fons 21) 210233 185201 © S95H64 198183 43241 25213 ov “Toualw = 47) 0x29 176401 S412 1935479 siege tde19 Males W= 92 200428 © 179401 TSARIIG ©1904 3 88 513258 Wd 17 FonaesW=15) 197414 180401 GHA 1907 +57 2246 124E18 “Tine = elapsed tine forog and ron expressed a minutes. ‘THR = exriso HA at end of en rack og TABLE 2, gression equations. ‘One Tack Jog (N= 54) 1 Ae Run Relative VOnae ‘Abslute Orn Relative Vom Voratie (clekg" rn) {temin“) (lek) ‘orstant 1005 are 802 Gener 334 Os6i4 3716 ody mass) 0.1696 0.0938 01856 apse tie rin) 1.48 0.1054 2767 Hear rate (op) 0.1928 “001s = Rag 087 9s 090 Se 30 az 28404 official Jounal ofthe American College of Sports Medicine For the 1.5-mile run (N = 49) relative and absolute VOamex estimation equations yielded a tay = 0.90 and SEE 2.8 ml-kg™-min™! and a tyy = 0.95 and SEE 0.203 I-min"', respectively. Cross-Validation of Regression Equations Results of the cross-validation analysis are presented in Table 3. When estimated VOzmax was regressed on observed VOrmax, intercepts and slopes were not signif icantly different from 0 and 1, respectively, for both the I-mile track jog and 1.5-mile run, Adjusted r-values and SEEs between observed and estimated relative VOrmax data involving the 1-mile track jog (N = 52) resulted in a raqj = 0.84 and SEE = 3.1 ml-kg™!«min“', while absolute VOsmax data generated a rag = 0.93, SEE = 0.234 I-min™', Adjusted r-values and SEEs between observed and estimated relative VOzamax data involving the 1.5-mile run (NV = 47) resulted in a ray = 0.82 and SEE = 3.9 ml-kg"!-min~, while absolute VOzmux data generated a fay = 0.92, SEE = 0.261 I-min’ DISCUSSION The finding of this study that the 1-mile track jog and [.5-mile run display comparable accuracy has sig- nificant ramifications. For many years college students have performed the 1.5-mile run asa measure of aerobic capacity, and based on the results of this and other studies (9,11,14), utilization of the 1.5-mile run appears justified. However, many who perform the 1.5-mile run are sedentary and/or unaccustomed to sustained high intensity exercise, and therefore the 1.5-mile run is generally disliked because of discomfort associated with this type of test. The I-mile track jog, on the other hand, allows participants to exercise at a submaximal level of exer- tion; a safer and more enjoyable test protocol than the 1.5-mile run, The track jog also provides an opportunity for teaching participants that a training program in- volving moderate, submaximal exercise can improve cardiorespiratory fitness, enhance exercise compliance, and reduce the risk of orthopedic injury (2). The elapsed jog time criterion (=8.0 min for males; TABLE 3. ross valcaton of regression equations (mean $0) MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE 29.0 min for females) and exercise HR limit (=180 bpm) utilized for the I-mile track jog were based on typical energy costs and age-specific HR data (25) in- volving jogging activity. The intent was to design a submaximal jogging protocol for relatively fit college age individuals. Accordingly, subjects who possessed adequate cardiorespiratory fitness (VOzmex Tange: 35.6- 59.4 ml-kg"-min"', N = 106) easily self-selected a submaximal jogging pace for both the warm-up and subsequent !-mile track jog. Subjects (V = 3) who appeared to possess a relatively low functional capacity were unable to maintain a exer HR = 180 bpm even at the slowest jogging pace and consequently were dropped from the study. A few subjects with higher levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (255 ml-kg™!-min™') felt somewhat restricted jogging at a relatively slow pace; however, a concomitant decrease in exercise HR. associated with the slower pace allowed for an accurate estimation of VO2max- Surprisingly, subjects tended to self-select a higher exercise intensity for the I-mile track jog than expected with percent of maximum HR (%HRyax) for males ( = 63) equaling 87.5 + 4.2% and females (N = 43) equaling 89.3 + 3.9%. Corresponding estimates of per- cent of maximum oxygen consumption (%VOzmax) Us ing standard formulae (3) to compute exercise oxygen cost were 75.2% and 79.3% for males and females, respectively. However, there was no indication that subjects worked at an exercise intensity that was un- comfortable and/or difficult to sustain since: 1) the average pace (males = 9.3 + 1.1 min, females = 10.7 + 1.3 min, overall range: 8.0-14.1 min) for the I-mile distance was quite slow for relatively fit college students, 2) the average RPE values (males = 11.4 + 1.8, females 1.$ + 1.3) were low and reflected a “fairly light” exercise intensity, and 3) subjects showed little sign of overexertion (i.¢., elevated respiration rate, fatigued appearance) immediately following the test. To verify that subjects maintained a steady pace for the I-mile track jog, lap times and accompanying HR data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. This analysis showed that both male and female subjects were able to maintain a consistent, steady speed over the I-mile distance. Interestingly, (One e Track Jog (V = 62) TEM Run (W= a7) Fela Vn oso VOrw, Flava VO: Tosa Waa (obama) en (ois) in) Ob: ed FO waxes Ise 088 azes 3620506 Prectes One seer 3952065 3265 sais 0s7e itt rams arr2 20s + 03689 7895967 “att 02209 Sep 3570086 dite 00484 0848 = 008e "1400648 fas ase 035, ase 092 see a8 234 ao 02st SEE (161 Wal as 10 ao 75 *P > 005; ot sfc erent‘SUBMAXIMAL TRACK JOG. exercise HR values increased, on the average, about cone beat per lap after exercise HR had initially leveled off; however, this gradual increase in HR was not due to changes in jogging speed. ‘The above findings are significant since a submaxi- mal, steady pace is critical in maintaining the predictive accuracy of the I-mile track jog. For instance, perform- ing the track jog at an exercise intensity above steady- state would tend to overestimate one’s predicted VOznax because of a greater contribution of energy from im- mediate and anaerobic energy stores. In addition, fail- ing to maintain a steady pace (ic. sprinting at the end Of the test) would weaken the inverse relationship be- tween exercise HR and estimated VO2nax- Independent variables utilized in the I-mile track jog VObrmax estimation equation were selected because of their statistical and biological relationship to observed VOanex. For example, many studies (12,19,24), includ- ing the present study, have determined that males have a higher average observed WOzmsx than females of sim- ilar age, thus supporting thie need for a “gender” inde- pendent variable. Body mass also serves as an important independent variable because of its inverse relationship with relative VO2max (expressed in ml-kg™!-min"'),i., a lighter body mass increases relative VOamex at a given absolute VOzmax (expressed in I-min“'), Furthermore, Jog time and exercise HR are also related to observed VOamsx Since a lower submaximal exercise HR at a given elapsed jog time is indicative of a higher relative VOrmax (27). Regarding the 1.5-mile run, only Getchell et al. (14) to our knowledge has published 2 VOamax regression equation for college students (r= 0.91). However, this equation was developed using a small sample (N= 21) of females and therefore is not applicable to males. Furthermore, body mass was not found to be a signifi- cant independent variable, no SEE was reported, and cross-validation of the regression equation was not con- sidered, Zwiren et al. (30), nevertheless, has demon- strated acceptable results (r = 0.79, SEE = 4.13 ml- kg"!-min“!, females: N = 38) when comparing the Getchell equation to observed VOzmas values. The SEE, SEE (% of VOzmss), and Tas for both the 1- mile track jog and 1.5-mile run compare favorably with the results of other VOzmax prediction tests that involve cycle ergometry (4,13,18,21), bench _ stepping (16,17,22), and treadmill walking (6,12,15,23) and track running (9,11,14,19,20,26). Consequently, both REFERENCES 1. ALLSEN, P. Ey J. HARRISON, and B. VANE. Fitness for Living Dubuate, 1A: Wm, C. Brown, 1990, 2. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE POSITION PAPER ON "TIE RECOMMENDED QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EXERCISE FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING CARDIORESPIRATORY AND MUS- CULAR FITNESS IN HEALTHY ADULTS. Med, Scl. Sports Exerc 22:265-274, 1990. Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine 405 the L-mile track jog and 1.5-mile run appear suitable for assigning individuals to norm-reference standards (4) for the categorization of cardiorespiratory fitness. However, discretion should be used when applying the results of this study to individuals who are older or younger than 18-29 yr. As shown by various studies (12,19,24), age is a significant independent variable in the prediction of VOzme. Because the current study involved a homogeneous sample of college age individ- uals, age was not shown to be an important predictor of VOrnax. Future work involving younger and older individuals should provide prediction equations appli- cable to a broader population. When computing VOzmax estimations for the I-mile track jog or 1.5-mile run, it is recommended that rela~ tive VOrms equations (Table 2) be utilized since 1) track jogging and running are weight-bearing activities ‘and VOsnax expressed in relative terms is most indica tive of one’s ability to perform this type of work, and 2) norms and reference standards for VOamas are usually given in relative terms, thus allowing for the categori- zation of aerobic power. The primary reason absolute ‘VOrmss equations (Table 2) were provided was to illus- trate that relative and absolute VOzmn equations gen- crated similar r-values. Such a comparison is important since spuriously high r-values can occur with relative VOsmsx estimation equations when body mass (Kg) is, ‘expressed in both the dependent and independent vari- ables (10). Because similar r-values were generated for both relative and absolute VO2max equations, it appears that the relative VOzmas equations are appropriate for estimating VOzmax- In conclusion, the I-mile track jog appears to be a viable alternative to the popular 1.5-mile run and other field tests used in the college setting assuming electronic HR monitors are available or accurate HR palpation data are utilized. The 1-mile track jog, including the warm-up, is easy to administer, requires only a mod- erate, submaximal level of exertion, and demonstrates acceptable accuracy in estimating VOzey. The results of this study also demonstrate that the 1.5-mile run has acceptable accuracy in predicting VOanax although it appears best suited for individuals who are accustomed to sustained high intensity exercise. Gilbert W.Fetingham is with the Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University. ‘Actress for correspondence: James D. George, 130 PEBW, Ar- zona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287. 3, AmeRican CoLLece OF Sports Mepicise. Guidelines for Exer- ‘else Testing and Prescription. Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1991, pp. 296-297, 4. AMERICAN HEART AssoclaTION CoMITTEE ON ExEncise. Exer- cise Testing and Training of Apparently Healthy Individuals: A ‘Handbook for Physicians. Dallas: American Heart Association, 1972, p. 15, 5, ASTRAND, P. O. and I, RYHMING. A: nomogram for caleuation of aerobie capacity (physical fitness) from pulse rate during406 — Offcial Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine submaximal work, J. Appl. Physiol. 7:218-221, 1954, 6, BONEN, A., V. H. HEYWARD, K. J. CURETON, eta. Prediction of ‘maximal oxygen uptake in’ boys, ages 7-15 years. Med. Sci Sports Exere 11:24-29, 1979. 17. BoRG, G. A. V. Psychophysical basis of perceived exertion. Med. Sei. Sports Exerc. 1377-381, 1982. 8, BURKE, E. J. Validity of selected laboratory and field tests of physical working capacity, Res. Q. Exere Sport 47:95=104, 1976. 9, Coorex, K. H. A means of assessing maximal oxygen intake. JAMA. 203:135-138, 1968. 10, DoLcEner, F. A. Prediction of maximal aerobic power in un- trained females. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 49:20-27, 1978. U1, Doourrrte, TL, and R. Bicaeé. The 12-minute run-walk: atest of cardio-respiratory fitness of adolescent boys, Res. Q. Exerc ‘Sport 3491-495, 1968, 12, Enaeuing, C. B, A. Wak, E, M. Puteo, J. WioRick, and J. M. Rive, Development of & single-stage submaximal treadmill walking test, Med. Sci. Sports Exere. 23:966-973, 1991. 13, Fox, E-L. A simple technique for predicting maximal aerobic power. J. Appl. Physiol. 35:914-916, 1973. 14, Gerctieut, L. H,, D, KIRRENDALL, and G. Ronains, Prediction ‘of maximal oxygen uptake in young adult women joggers. Res, (Q. Exere. Sport 48:61-67, 1977 15, HlenuaistON, R. and J. A. Fautxwer. Prediction of maximal oxygen uptake by 2 step-wise repression technique. J. App. Physiol, 30:833-837, 1971. 16, Jerre, MJ. Campncti, J. MONGEON, and R. ROUTHIER, The ‘Canadian Home Fitness test, Can. Med. Assoc. J. |14:680-683, 1916, 17, Jounson, and D. SieGeL. The use of selected submaximal step esis in predicting change inthe maximal oxygen intake of college women. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 21:259~264, 1981 18, Kascu, F. W. The validity ofthe Astrand and Sjostrand submax- imal tests. Physician Sportsmed, 12:47—S4, 1984, 19, KLINE,G. M,.J.P, PORCARR. HINTERMEIsTER tal. Estimation 20, 24 22. 2. m4. 25, 26, 2. MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE of VOns ftom a L-mile track walk, gender, age, and body weight, Med. Sci Sports Exore, 19:253-259, 1987. ‘Maxsup, M. G. and K. D. Courts. Application of the Cooper ‘2ernimute run-walk test to young males. Res. Q. Exere, Sport 42:54-59, 1971. MasrroPA010, J. A. Prediction of maximal O, consumption in ‘middle-aged men by multiple regression. Med. Se. Spor Exere, 2:124-127, 1970, McAnoLe, W. D. F. I. Katou, and G. S. Pectin, et al. Rela- bility and’ interrelationships between maximal oxygen intake, physical work capacity, and step-test scores in college women, ‘Med. Scl, Sports Exer. 4:182-186, 1972. Merz, K. F. and J. F. ALEXANDER. Estimation of maximal ‘oxygen intake from submaximal work parameters. Res. Q. Exer. ‘Sport 42:187-198, 1971. NAGLE, F. J. Physiological assessment of maximal performance. Exere, Sport Sei. Rev. 1313-338, 1973. PoLtock, M. L,, J. H, WitMORE, and S. M. Fox. Exercise in Health and Disease. Philadelphia: W. B, Saunders, 1990. Rims, P. M, and W. A. KACHADORIAN. Maximal oxygen intake prediction in young and middle-aged males. Sports Med. 9:17 22, 1969, SALTIN, B. Physiological effects of physical conditioning, Med. ‘Sei Sports Exere,1:50-56, 1969. . SICONOLRI S.F., E, M, CULLINANE, R. A. CARLETON, and P. D. ‘THOMPSON. Asstssing VOseu in epidemiological studies: modi- fication of the Astrand-Ryhming test, Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 14:335-338, 1982. TaYLon, H., E, Buskink, and A. HENSCHEL. Maximal oxygen intake a an objective measure of cardiorespratory performance. 4. Appl. Physiol. 8:73-80, 1955. Zwvinen, L, D,, P, S. FREEDSON, A. WARD, S. WILKE, and J. M. Rippe, Estimation of VOsmu: 4 comparative analysis of five exercise tests. Res, Q. Exert Sport 62:73-78, 1991.