Cross-sectional analysis established age- and sex-specific reference values for cardiorespiratory fitness indicators in Dutch adults, suggesting the need for tailored assessments.
Purpose Accurate interpretation of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) requires reference values that account for sex, age, and body composition. Existing reference values often lack these distinctions or exclude older adults. This study aimed to establish sex- and age-specific reference values for absolute and relative (body mass-corrected and lean body mass-corrected) CRF parameters derived from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in Dutch community-dwelling 55- to 75-year-old adults. Methods Cross-sectional data from 611 participants of the AMCOHF study were analyzed. CRF was assessed via cycle ergometer CPET evaluating oxygen uptake (V̇O 2peak ) and work rate (WR peak ) at peak exercise, oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (V̇O 2VAT ), and oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES). Body mass and lean body mass were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Reference values stratified by sex and age were developed using generalized additive models. Prediction equations were generated using multiple linear regression. Correlations with V̇O 2peak assessed the usefulness of V̇O 2VAT and OUES as submaximal and effort-independent alternatives for CRF. Results All CRF variables declined with age. V̇O 2peak (L/min) declined quasi-linearly (females: 1.3%/year; males: 2.5%/year). Significant sex differences were observed between all CRF variables (absolute and body mass-corrected values: p < 0.001; lean body mass-corrected values: p < 0.05). Significant correlations were found between V̇O 2peak and WR peak ( ρ = 0.90), V̇O 2VAT ( ρ = 0.78), and OUES ( ρ = 0.87). Conclusion This study provides reference values for V̇O 2peak , WR peak , V̇O 2VAT , and OUES in Dutch older adults aged 55–75 years during cycle ergometer CPET, offering a unique dataset for assessing CRF and monitoring intervention effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houtkamp et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: