RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Minimum cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has been recommended for firefighters due to job requirements. Thus, it is important to identify accurate and readily available methods to assess CRF in this population. Non-exercise CRF estimates (NEx-CRF) have been proposed but this approach requires validation in this population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a NEx-CRF, as compared to a field maximum exercise test, among career military firefighters of both genders using a comprehensive agreement analysis. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of a NEx-CRF estimate compared to the Cooper 12âmin running test among 702 males and 106 female firefighters. RESULTS: Cooper and NEx-CRF tests yielded similar CRF in both genders (differences <1.8±4.7âml/kg-1.min-1; effect size <0.34). However, NEx-CRF underestimated Cooper-derived CRF among the fittest firefighters. NEx-CRF showed moderate to high sensitivity/specificity to detect fit or unfit firefighters (71.9% among men and 100% among women). Among men, the NEx-CRF method correctly identified most firefighters with less than 11 METs or greater than 13 METs, but showed lower precision to discriminate those with CRF between 11-13 METs. CONCLUSIONS: The NEx-CRF method to estimate firefighters' CRF may be considered as an alternative method when an exercise-based method is not available or may be used to identify those who require more traditional testing (CRF 11-13 METs).
Assuntos
Aptidão Cardiorrespiratória , Teste de Esforço , Bombeiros , Militares , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
The validity of the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) was investigated to evaluate the anaerobic power performance in comparison to Wingate test in cycling athletes. Ten mountain-bike male cyclists (28.0±7.3 years) randomly performed Wingate Test and RAST with two trials each. After several anthropometric measurements, peak power (PP), mean power (MP) and fatigue index (FI) for RAST and Wingate Test were analyzed using Student's paired t-test, Pearson's linear correlation test (r) and Bland and Altman's plots. Results showed that, with the exception of FI (33.8±4.6% vs. 37.8±7.9%; r=0.172), significant differences were detected between the Wingate and RAST tests with regard to PP and MP. Although there was a strong correlation for PP and MP, or rather, 0.831 and 0.714 respectively, agreement of analysis between Wingate and RAST protocols was low. The above suggested that RAST was not appropriate to evaluate the performance of anaerobic power by Wingate test in cycling athletes.
O objetivo foi investigar a validade do teste de RAST (Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test) em avaliar o desempenho da potência anaeróbia a partir do teste de Wingate em ciclistas treinados. Participaram do estudo 10 ciclistas do sexo masculino (28,0±7,3 anos) da modalidade de Mountain bike. Após a mensuração das variáveis antropométricas, a potência pico (PP), média (PM) e o índice de fadiga (IF) foram determinados randomicamente a partir de dois testes de Wingate e dois testes de RAST. Foram utilizados o teste t independente de Student, a análise de correlação linear de Pearson (r) e o teste de Bland-Altman. Os resultados demonstraram, exceto para o IF (33.8±4.6% vs. 37.8±7.9%; r=0.172), diferenças significativas entre o teste de Wingate e o RAST para PP e PM (W.kg-1 e W). Embora os valores de correlação para a PP e PM (W) tenham sido fortes (0.831 e 0.714, respectivamente) a concordância entre os protocolos de Wingate e RAST foi baixa, sugerindo que o teste de RAST não é válido para avaliar o desempenho da potência anaeróbica a partir do teste de Wingate em ciclistas.
El objetivo fue investigar la validad del teste de RAST (Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test) en evaluar el desempeño de la potencia anaeróbica través del uso del teste de Wingate en ciclistas trenados. Participaron del estudio 10 ciclistas masculinos (28,0±7,3 años) de la modalidad de Mountain bike. Después de la mensuración de las variables antropométricas, la potencia pico (PP), media (PM) y el índice de fatiga (IF) fueron determinados al acaso a partir de dos testes de Wingate y de dos testes de RAST. Fueron utilizados el test t independiente de Student, el análisis de correlación linear de Pearson (r) y el test de Bland-Altman. Los resultados demostraron, contrariamente al IF (33.8±4.6% vs. 37.8±7.9%; r=0.172), diferencias significativas entre el teste de Wingate y el RAST para PP y PM (W.kg-1 e W). Mismo que los valores de correlación de PP e PM (W) tengan sido fortes (0,831 e 0,714, respectivamente), la concordancia entre los protocolos de Wingate y RAST fue baja, sugiriendo que el teste de RAST no es válido para evaluar el desempeño de la potencia anaeróbica a partir del teste de Wingate en este grupo.