Comprehensive review of assessing physical performance in students highlights innovative approaches and functional readiness.
This article presents a comprehensive review of contemporary approaches to assessing the physical working capacity of university students. Physical performance is defined as an integral indicator of the body’s functional potential, reflecting not only the general state of health but also the level of adaptive reserves of the organism. The review emphasizes that the evaluation of functional readiness is especially relevant for student youth, who often face high academic workloads, irregular physical activity, and significant psycho- emotional stress, all of which influence their adaptive capacities. The historical development of diagnostic methods for physical working capacity is analyzed in detail. Early approaches relied primarily on classical maximal tests and submaximal ergometric assessments such as the PWC170 test, which provided standardized data on cardiovascular responses to exercise. Over time, these methods were complemented by various functional trials with graded and dosed workloads, allowing researchers to evaluate aerobic power, endurance, and recovery dynamics. However, traditional approaches have certain limitations, as they may not sufficiently reflect the complex nature of physiological adaptation processes or the inertia of the cardiovascular system. It is concluded that the integration of closed-cycle load testing into the practice of higher education institutions is highly promising. This methodology not only enables a deeper understanding of students’ functional capacities but also contributes to the optimization of health-oriented programs, prevention of overload-related disorders, and improvement of overall physical education strategies. By implementing these innovative approaches, universities can ensure more personalized and evidence- based training processes that enhance both physical readiness and long-term well-being of the younger generation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samokysh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: