Advanced

A novel rating scale to predict maximal exercise capacity.

Wisén, Anita LU ; Farazdaghi, R G and Wohlfart, Björn LU (2002) In European Journal of Applied Physiology1999-01-01+01:00 87(4-5). p.350-357
Abstract
To predict maximal exercise capacity, we have developed the rating of perceived capacity (RPC) scale, based on metabolic equivalents (METs). MET values from 1 to 20 were listed on a progressive scale and linked to physical activities. Test subjects rated their perceived capacity by choosing the most strenuous activity and the corresponding MET value that they could sustain for 30 min. In order to validate the RPC, 87 healthy women participated in the study (age range 21–79 years). The capacity rated from the scale (METRPC) was compared with the actual work capacity in a maximal incremental ramp cycle test. The maximal load achieved at the cycle test (in W), was transformed into the unit MET (METtest). The mean difference between METRPC and... (More)
To predict maximal exercise capacity, we have developed the rating of perceived capacity (RPC) scale, based on metabolic equivalents (METs). MET values from 1 to 20 were listed on a progressive scale and linked to physical activities. Test subjects rated their perceived capacity by choosing the most strenuous activity and the corresponding MET value that they could sustain for 30 min. In order to validate the RPC, 87 healthy women participated in the study (age range 21–79 years). The capacity rated from the scale (METRPC) was compared with the actual work capacity in a maximal incremental ramp cycle test. The maximal load achieved at the cycle test (in W), was transformed into the unit MET (METtest). The mean difference between METRPC and METtest was –1.4 (3.18) (2SD). Multiple linear regression showed that METtest depended significantly on METRPC and age. Extended regression analysis suggested that a nonlinear correction was most appropriate in order to improve the prediction. The maximal predicted capacity was given by: METpred=(5.08+0.70·METRPC)/[1+(e0.059 (age–87.2))]. After this correction, the mean difference between METpred and METtest was reduced to 0.0 (2.62) (2SD). Reference values for METpred and METtest were also obtained. In conclusion, the RPC combined with an age correction was shown to predict accurately maximal exercise capacity; it is also quick and easy to use. Thus, RPC may be a valuable tool in the prescription of exercise and in monitoring the effects of exercise and rehabilitation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
European Journal of Applied Physiology1999-01-01+01:00
volume
87
issue
4-5
pages
350 - 357
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • scopus:0036944379
ISSN
1439-6327
DOI
10.1007/s00421-002-0636-y
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
b56ec7c1-d32a-44f3-9d06-0fbe3d01787e (old id 1124984)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=A%20novel%20rating%20scale%20to%20predict%20maximal%20exercise%20capacity.
date added to LUP
2008-06-03 11:10:58
date last changed
2017-11-05 03:39:27
@article{b56ec7c1-d32a-44f3-9d06-0fbe3d01787e,
  abstract     = {To predict maximal exercise capacity, we have developed the rating of perceived capacity (RPC) scale, based on metabolic equivalents (METs). MET values from 1 to 20 were listed on a progressive scale and linked to physical activities. Test subjects rated their perceived capacity by choosing the most strenuous activity and the corresponding MET value that they could sustain for 30 min. In order to validate the RPC, 87 healthy women participated in the study (age range 21–79 years). The capacity rated from the scale (METRPC) was compared with the actual work capacity in a maximal incremental ramp cycle test. The maximal load achieved at the cycle test (in W), was transformed into the unit MET (METtest). The mean difference between METRPC and METtest was –1.4 (3.18) (2SD). Multiple linear regression showed that METtest depended significantly on METRPC and age. Extended regression analysis suggested that a nonlinear correction was most appropriate in order to improve the prediction. The maximal predicted capacity was given by: METpred=(5.08+0.70·METRPC)/[1+(e0.059 (age–87.2))]. After this correction, the mean difference between METpred and METtest was reduced to 0.0 (2.62) (2SD). Reference values for METpred and METtest were also obtained. In conclusion, the RPC combined with an age correction was shown to predict accurately maximal exercise capacity; it is also quick and easy to use. Thus, RPC may be a valuable tool in the prescription of exercise and in monitoring the effects of exercise and rehabilitation.},
  author       = {Wisén, Anita and Farazdaghi, R G and Wohlfart, Björn},
  issn         = {1439-6327},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4-5},
  pages        = {350--357},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {European Journal of Applied Physiology1999-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {A novel rating scale to predict maximal exercise capacity.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0636-y},
  volume       = {87},
  year         = {2002},
}