FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2509891180> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2509891180 endingPage "e31" @default.
• W2509891180 startingPage "e30" @default.
• W2509891180 abstract "To conduct studies on the cardiorespiratory response during maximal exercise testing in population-based samples is complicated. To compare the results with those obtained by others is even more challenging. In our article in CHEST1Edvardsen E Hansen BH Holme IM Dyrstad SM Anderssen SA Reference values for cardiorespiratory response and fitness on the treadmill in a 20- to 85-year-old population.Chest. 2013; 144: 241-248Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (158) Google Scholar we made an effort to do so, and in a single paragraph we compared our results with those from the HUNT Fitness study.2Aspenes ST Nilsen TI Skaug EA et al.Peak oxygen uptake and cardiovascular risk factors in 4631 healthy women and men.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43: 1465-1473Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar Dr Nes and colleagues comment on our discussion points concerning why maximal oxygen uptake ( V˙o2max) was 9% lower in our study1Edvardsen E Hansen BH Holme IM Dyrstad SM Anderssen SA Reference values for cardiorespiratory response and fitness on the treadmill in a 20- to 85-year-old population.Chest. 2013; 144: 241-248Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (158) Google Scholar compared with the mean values from the HUNT Fitness study.2Aspenes ST Nilsen TI Skaug EA et al.Peak oxygen uptake and cardiovascular risk factors in 4631 healthy women and men.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43: 1465-1473Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar They provide good arguments that we, in retrospect, should have considered when we discussed our results originally.1Edvardsen E Hansen BH Holme IM Dyrstad SM Anderssen SA Reference values for cardiorespiratory response and fitness on the treadmill in a 20- to 85-year-old population.Chest. 2013; 144: 241-248Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (158) Google Scholar There are indeed several reasons why differences across studies occur. Among them are differences in study population, test protocol, exclusion criteria prior to testing, criteria for terminating the test, and type of equipment used. The participants included in our cardiopulmonary exercise testing study were recruited from a population-based sample in which several individuals reported asthma, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or type 2 diabetes. Hence, it may be argued that the health status of the original study population included in our study and that of those in the HUNT Fitness study were different. However, only a few individuals who reported underlying disease were included in the exercise test in the cardiopulmonary exercise testing study, suggesting that this is not the main explanation for the differences observed in V˙o2max between the studies. Further, the difference in V˙o2max between the studies was consistent across age strata, implying that the health aspect may be less important. Nevertheless, the differences between the study populations may still explain the differences observed in V˙o2max between the HUNT Fitness study and ours, for instance, with respect to differences in exercise habits and physical activity. When discussing our observations, we mentioned “level of exhaustion” as one of the possible reasons for the different results between studies. Even though maximal heart rate (HRmax) is not a variable that predicts maximal effort well, it may provide a picture of the degree of fatigue in larger groups. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, the information about HRmax from the HUNT Fitness study3Loe H Rognmo O Saltin B Wisløff U Aerobic capacity reference data in 3816 healthy men and women 20-90 years.PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e64319Crossref PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar was not publicly available when we submitted our manuscript. In retrospect, the higher observed HRmax values in the HUNT Fitness study may well partly explain the difference in V˙o2max between the study populations. However, it is equally reasonable to argue that the precision and accuracy of the measurement instrument may play a pivotal role when it comes to comparing results across studies, regardless of the outcome in question. However, with belated wisdom, we realize that we pinpointed too strongly the differences in the equipment as one possible explanation for differences between studies. It was our intention to provide a balanced and reasonable discussion with respect to the difference in results between the two studies. Comparing Cardiorespiratory Fitness Across PopulationsCHESTVol. 146Issue 1PreviewIn the article by Edvardsen et al1 in CHEST (July 2013), the authors discuss why mean maximal oxygen uptake ( V ˙o2max) in their sample (N = 759) is 9% lower compared with the HUNT Fitness Study (N = 4,631). The main point made by the authors is that a validation study on one portable MetaMax III X analyzer has been shown to give 8% higher oxygen uptake values than the Douglas bag system.2 As clearly described in several publications from our group, the portable MetaMax II analyzer was used in the HUNT study. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2509891180 created "2016-09-16" @default.
• W2509891180 creator A5013706735 @default.
• W2509891180 creator A5031764176 @default.
• W2509891180 creator A5058867907 @default.
• W2509891180 creator A5059796996 @default.
• W2509891180 creator A5086460113 @default.
• W2509891180 date "2014-07-01" @default.
• W2509891180 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2509891180 title "Comparing Cardiorespiratory Fitness Across Populations: Response" @default.
• W2509891180 cites W2024550820 @default.
• W2509891180 cites W2056825073 @default.
• W2509891180 cites W2145140858 @default.
• W2509891180 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-0712" @default.
• W2509891180 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25010978" @default.
• W2509891180 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2509891180 type Work @default.
• W2509891180 sameAs 2509891180 @default.
• W2509891180 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2509891180 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2509891180 hasAuthorship W2509891180A5013706735 @default.
• W2509891180 hasAuthorship W2509891180A5031764176 @default.
• W2509891180 hasAuthorship W2509891180A5058867907 @default.
• W2509891180 hasAuthorship W2509891180A5059796996 @default.
• W2509891180 hasAuthorship W2509891180A5086460113 @default.
• W2509891180 hasBestOaLocation W25098911801 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C117437137 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C171687745 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C196310339 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C2777953023 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C2781464450 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C43893838 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C84393581 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C117437137 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C126322002 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C164705383 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C171687745 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C17744445 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C1862650 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C196310339 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C199539241 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C2777953023 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C2779473830 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C2781464450 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C2908647359 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C43893838 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C71924100 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C74909509 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C83867959 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C84393581 @default.
• W2509891180 hasConceptScore W2509891180C99454951 @default.
• W2509891180 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2509891180 hasLocation W25098911801 @default.
• W2509891180 hasLocation W25098911802 @default.
• W2509891180 hasOpenAccess W2509891180 @default.
• W2509891180 hasPrimaryLocation W25098911801 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W1558204415 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W1847273811 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W1968747477 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W200500237 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W2067641702 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W2509804223 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W3041470594 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W3042027469 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W4238277519 @default.
• W2509891180 hasRelatedWork W3087164976 @default.
• W2509891180 hasVolume "146" @default.
• W2509891180 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2509891180 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2509891180 magId "2509891180" @default.
• W2509891180 workType "article" @default.