Why the study?
Predicting youth peak oxygen uptake from field performance tests, along with ratio-scaling and clinical red flags, risks misleading clinical practice and health recommendations.
Does predicting peak oxygen uptake from field performance tests accurately reflect youth cardiorespiratory fitness compared to rigorously determined peak oxygen uptake?
Does predicting peak oxygen uptake from field performance tests accurately reflect youth cardiorespiratory fitness compared to rigorously determined peak oxygen uptake?
Predicting youth cardiorespiratory fitness from field performance tests may mislead clinical practice and misguide recommendations for cardiovascular health promotion.
Challenges ratio-scaling in youth field-test predictions; leaves open rigorous validation before clinical or research adoption.
Rigorously determined peak oxygen uptake is internationally recognized as the criterion measure of youth cardiorespiratory fitness. The assessment and interpretation of children's and adolescents' peak oxygen uptake and the relationship of the measure with other health-related variables are well documented. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the prediction of peak oxygen uptake from field performance tests in young people. However, coupled with ratio-scaling of data and the raising of clinical red flags, these practices risk clouding our understanding of youth cardiorespiratory fitness and its relationship with current and future health. We believe these methods have the potential to mislead clinical practice and misguide recommendations for the promotion of youth cardiovascular health. We discuss relevant scientific evidence and interpretations that have emerged from predicting youth cardiorespiratory fitness from performance test scores. We argue that children deserve to have health care founded on evidence-based science and not on myths and misconceptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Armstrong et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: