| 1. |
- Väisänen, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Criterion validity of the Ekblom-Bak and the Åstrand submaximal test in an elderly population.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Applied Physiology. - : Springer. - 1439-6319 .- 1439-6327. ; 120:2, s. 307-316
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to validate the submaximal Ekblom-Bak test (EB-test) and the Åstrand test (Å-test) for an elderly population.METHODS: Participants (n = 104), aged 65-75 years, completed a submaximal aerobic test on a cycle ergometer followed by an individually adjusted indirect calorimetry VO2max test on a treadmill. The HR from the submaximal test was used to estimate VO2max using both the EB-test and Å-test equations.RESULTS: The correlation between measured and estimated VO2max using the EB method and Å method in women was r = 0.64 and r = 0.58, respectively and in men r = 0.44 and r = 0.44, respectively. In women, the mean difference between estimated and measured VO2max was - 0.02 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.08 to 0.04) for the EB method and - 0.12 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.02) for the Å method. Corresponding values for men were 0.05 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.04 to 0.14) and - 0.28 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.14), respectively. However, the EB method was found to overestimate VO2max in men with low fitness and the Å method was found to underestimate VO2max in both women and men. For women, the coefficient of variance was 11.1%, when using the EB method and 19.8% when using the Å method. Corresponding values for men were 11.6% and 18.9%, respectively.CONCLUSION: The submaximal EB-test is valid for estimating VO2max in elderly women, but not in all elderly men. The Å-test is not valid for estimating VO2max in the elderly.
|
|
| 2. |
- Väisänen, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Lifestyle-associated health risk indicators across a wide range of occupational groups : a cross-sectional analysis in 72,855 workers.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2458. ; 20:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Identify and compare health risk indicators for common chronic diseases between different occupational groups.METHODS: A total of 72,855 participants (41% women) participating in an occupational health service screening in 2014-2019 were included. Occupation was defined by the Swedish Standard Classification of Occupation, and divided into nine major and additionally eight sub-major groups. These were analysed separately, as white- and blue-collar occupations and as low- and high-skilled occupations. Seven health risk indicators were self-reported: exercise, physical work situation, sitting at work and leisure, smoking, diet, and perceived health, whereas cardiorespiratory fitness, BMI and blood pressure were measured. These were further dichotomized (yes/no) and as clustering of risk indicators (≥3 vs. <3).RESULTS: The greatest variation in OR across sub-major and major occupational groups were seen for daily smoking (OR = 0.68 to OR = 5.12), physically demanding work (OR = 0.55 to OR = 45.74) and high sitting at work (OR = 0.04 to OR = 1.86). For clustering of health risk indicators, blue-collar workers had significantly higher clustering of health risks (OR: 1.80; 95% CI 1.71-1.90) compared to white-collar workers (reference). Compared to high-skilled white-collar workers, low-skilled white-collar workers had similar OR (2.00; 1.88-2.13) as high-skilled blue-collar workers (1.98; 1.86-2.12), with low-skilled blue-collar workers having the highest clustered risk (2.32; 2.17-2.48).CONCLUSION: There were large differences in health risk indicators across occupational groups, mainly between high-skilled white-collar occupations and the other occupations, with important variations also between major and sub-major occupational groups. Future health interventions should target the occupational groups identified with the highest risk for effective disease prevention.
|
|
