Aerobic fitness testing: an update

This study confirms that all three tests are reliable tools for the assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness and the prediction of aerobic capacity. While this particular study consisted of active, youthful subjects, subsequent studies at University College Chester have found similar findings with larger databases and a wider cross-section of subjects. The Astrand cycle test and Chester step test are submaximal tests with error margins of 5-15 per cent and therefore, not as precise as maximal testing. However, they still give a reasonably accurate reflection of an individual's fitness without the cost, time, effort and risk on the part of the subject. The bleep test is a low-cost maximal test designed for well-motivated, active individuals who are used to running to physical exhaustion. Used on other groups, results will not accurately reflect cardiorespiratory fitness values. While all three tests have inherent advantages and disadvantages, perhaps the most important factors are the knowledge and skills of the tester. Without a sound understanding of the physiological principles underlying these tests, and the ability to conduct an accurate assessment and evaluation of results in a knowledgeable and meaningful way, then the credibility of the tests and the results become suspect. However, used correctly, aerobic capacity tests can provide valuable baseline data about the fitness levels of individuals and data from which exercise programmes may be developed. The tests also enable fitness improvements to be monitored, help to motivate participants by establishing reasonable and achievable goals, assist in risk stratification and facilitate participants' education about the importance of physical fitness for work and for life. Since this study was completed, further tests have been repeated on 140 subjects of a wider age and ability range. This large database confirms the results found in this study.