Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Cardiology Research and Practice
Volume 2013, Article ID 940170, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/940170
Clinical Study
Comparison of Predicted Exercise Capacity Equations and
the Effect of Actual versus Ideal Body Weight among Subjects
Undergoing Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing
H. Reza Ahmadian,1 Joseph J. Sclafani,1 Ethan E. Emmons,2
Michael J. Morris,2 Kenneth M. Leclerc,1 and Ahmad M. Slim1
1 Cardiology Service, Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, San Antonio, TX 78234-6200, USA
2 Pulmonary/Critical Care Service, Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, San Antonio, TX 78234-6200, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Ahmad M. Slim; ahmad.m.slim.mil@mail.mil
Received 2 January 2013; Accepted 13 March 2013
Academic Editor: Firat Duru
Copyright © 2013 H. Reza Ahmadian et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Background. Oxygen uptake at maximal exercise (VO2 max) is considered the best available index for assessment of exercise
capacity. The purpose of this study is to determine if the use of actual versus ideal body weight in standard regression equations
for predicted VO2 max results in differences in predicted VO2 max. Methods. This is a retrospective chart review of patients who
were predominantly in active military duty with complaints of dyspnea or exercise tolerance and who underwent cardiopulmonary
exercise testing (CPET) from 2007 to 2009. Results. A total of 230 subjects completed CPET on a bicycle ergometer with a male
predominance (62%) and an average age of 37 ± 15 years. There was significant discordance between the measured VO2 max and
predicted VO2 max when measured by the Hansen and Wasserman reference equations (𝑃 < 0.001). Specifically, there was less
overestimation when predicted VO2 max was based on ideal body weight as opposed to actual body weight. Conclusion. Our
retrospective analysis confirmed the wide variations in predicted versus measured VO2 max based on varying prediction equations
and showed the potential advantage of using ideal body weight as opposed to actual body weight in order to further standardize
reference norms.
1. Introduction
The determination of functional capacity to perform maximal
exercise is one of the intended goals of any form of stress
testing. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) offers two
specific advantages over conventional stress testing. During
conventional testing, the degree of effort can be measured
in several ways including subject report of volitional fatigue,
ratings of perceived exertion, the percentage of predicted
heart rate achieved, and the interpretation of the provider
who is supervising the test. Another advantage of CPET is
the direct measurement of maximal oxygen consumption
as a measure of functional capacity, referred to as VO2
max.
The objective of this study was to compare published
reference values for VO2 max based on ideal versus actual
body weight to determine the effect on interpretation of
maximal exercise during CPET.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Protocol and Oversight. The study is a retrospective
review of a series of CPET data initially utilizing pre-
dicted VO2 max using the Jones 1983 reference equation:
Male: VO2 (L/ min) = 4.2 − (0.032 ∗ age), and Female:
VO2 (L/ min) = 2.6 − (0.014 ∗ age).
Maximum VO2 was recalculated using different pre-
diction equations and ideal versus actual body weight,
respectively. Physicians trained in the interpretation of CPET
determined if interpretation of maximal exercise differed
using the various prediction equations (Jones et al., 1985;
2
Cardiology Research and Practice
Hansen et al., 1984; Wasserman et al., 1999) as well as ideal
versus actual body weight, respectively, as follows.
Jones et al., 1985 [2]:
VO2 (L/ min)
=
0.046 (ht) − 0.21 (age) −
0.62 (sex) − 4.31,
Hansen et al., 1984 [3]:
Male: VO2 (L/ min) = wt ∗ (50.75 − (0.37 ∗
age))/1000,
Female: VO2 (L/ min) = (wt + 43) ∗ (22.78 −
(0.17 ∗ age))/1000,
Wasserman et al., 1999 [4]:
Male: VO2 (L/ min) = wt ∗ (50.72 − (0.372 ∗
age))/1000,
Female: VO2 (L/ min) = (wt + 42.8) ∗ (22.78 −
(0.17 ∗ age))/1000.
2.2. Data Collection. All CPET studies were performed in the
Brooke Army Medical Center Pulmonary Function Labora-
tory beginning in January 2007 through December 2009. The
study group primarily consisted of active duty military being
evaluated for dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Studies were
performed on a graded exercise test using an incremental
protocol on a cycle ergometer, and patients performed a
maximal exercise test until limited by fatigue or symptoms.
Oxygen saturation was monitored with the LifeStat 1600
pulse oximeter (Physio-Control; Redmond, WA), and 12-
lead electrocardiograph monitoring was accomplished via
the Marquette 2000 during the test. Blood pressures were
taken before the test and immediately upon completion of
exercise. All participants were exercised using a standard
protocol with increases in resistance of 25 watts every minute
and were asked to continue exercising until exhaustion or
limited by symptoms. During the entire warm-up, exercise,
and recovery phases of the test, expired gas analysis was
performed through the 2900 Series Metabolic Cart (Sen-
sormedics; Yorba Linda, CA). Gas analysis measurements
included oxygen consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide pro-
duction (VCO2), tidal volume (TV), respiratory rate (RR),
and minute ventilation (VE).
2.3. Statistical Analysis. Data are presented as mean ± SD.
Demographic comparisons between genders were analyzed
by a two-tail Student’s 𝑡 test. Actual measured VO2 max was
compared to predicted VO2 max between all methods using
a one-way ANOVA with Holm-Sidak post hoc test. Clinical
agreement between algorithms for VO2 max using actual
versus ideal body weights using limit of VO2 max ≤ 84%
predicted maximums for nominal data was assessed using
Cohen’s kappa, and the McNemar test was employed to test
discordance. 𝑃 values < 0.05 were considered significant.
Regression analysis was employed to assess the strength of
association between VO2 max predictors and actual VO2 max
measurements, and a Bland-Altman test was employed to
assess agreement throughout the range of predicted VO2 max
for each algorithm.
Table 1: Demographics gender variations.
Column 1
Male
(𝑛 = 142)
Female
(𝑛 = 88)
𝑃 value
Age (yrs)
36 ± 14
40 ± 16
0.049
Height (cm)
176.9 ± 8.2
163.9 ± 7.9
<0.001
Weight (Kg)
89.4 ± 18.3
72.3 ± 13.8
<0.001
Ideal weight (Kg)
79.0 ± 6.6
64.1 ± 5.3
<0.001
BMI (Kg/M2)
28.6 ± 5.6
27.1 ± 5.7
<0.001
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actual
VO2 max
Jones et al., [2]
Jones 83
Wasserman et al., [4] (wt)
Wasserman et al., [4] (pred)
Hansen et al., [3] (wt)
Hansen et al., [3] (pred)
Figure 1: Figure indicates significant overestimation of predictors
of VO2 max compared with actual measured VO2 max in this
population. Significant differences among test (𝑃 ≤ 0.001).
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Patient Characteristics. The study population
consisted of 230 subjects with male predominance (62%) and
a mean age of 37 ± 15 years. Table 1 illustrates differences
among genders with the population. Figure 1 illustrates the
marked variance among all VO2 predictive equations (𝑃 <
0.001), regardless of whether ideal body weight was used or
not, as well as significant overestimation of predicted VO2
max compared with actual measured VO2 max in this pop-
ulation. Figure 2 compares regression lines for the Hansen
algorithm using either actual or ideal body weights to predict
VO2 max. Although 𝑅2 was greater when using ideal body
weight, the discordance of the estimates of true VO2 max,
using ideal or actual body weights, was greater when VO2
max was low. Figures 3 and 4 indicate only a moderate
agreement between Hansen algorithms using actual versus
ideal body weights to predict VO2 max ≤ 84%. Although
80.8% of time results agreed (kappa = 0.566), there was
significant discordance (19.2%, 𝑃 < 0.001) between tests.
Cardiology Research and Practice
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
Hansen VO2 max
True VO2 max
𝑦 = 0.8577𝑥 + 1.0685
𝑅2 = 0.4664
𝑦 = 0.7369𝑥 + 1.0483
𝑅2 = 0.5105
VO2 max (actual)
VO2 Hansen et al., [3] (act)
VO2 Hansen et al., [3] (pred)
Linear
(VO2 Hansen et al., [3] (act))
Linear
(VO2 Hansen et al., [3] (pred))
Figure 2: Comparison among regression lines for the Hansen
algorithm using either actual or ideal body weights to predict VO2
max.
4. Discussion
VO2 max reflects the product of cardiac output and the
arteriovenous oxygen difference at peak exercise. Clinically,
it is usually expressed as a percentage of predicted since it is
believed to be more appropriate for intersubject comparisons
as opposed to the standardization by body mass [1]. Because
this is a weight-indexed value, differences in weight alone can
impact the calculation irrespective of other objective factors.
This is illustrated by the observation that obese patients
have lower VO2 max results than those of normal weight
due to the fact that adipose tissue is relatively metabolically
inactive. The measurement of VO2 max is influenced by many
factors to include age, sex, body size and composition, and
level of aerobic training. Consequently, different prediction
equations can yield different predicted VO2 values based on
which variables are used in the calculations.
According to recommendations made by the Amer-
ican Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physi-
cians (ATS/ACCP) in a statement on CPET, the two most
widely used sets of references values, Jones et al. [2] and
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Differences
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
CI +95%
Bias
CI −95%
Bias −ci
Bias +ci
Test range
Bland-Altman test of agreement
bias 𝑃 = 0.072
Mean difference Hansen predicted − actual VO2
Figure 3: Illustration of Bland-Altman test of agreement between
Hansen predicted VO2 max using ideal versus actual body weight in
calculations.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
%VO2 max Hansen (wt)
%VO2 max Hansen (predicted wt)
Clinical interpretations
Figure 4: Presentation of the level of agreement between Hansen
algorithm using actual versus ideal body weights to predict VO2 max
≤ 84%.
Hansen et al. [3], should be used clinically. Wasserman et al.
published as well a different set of reference values used for
VO2 max in addition to the ATS/ACCP endorsed references
mentioned earlier [4]. At least one study has demonstrated
that different sets of maximal reference values can have
significant impact on interpretation of CPET results [5].
4
Cardiology Research and Practice
The ATS/ACCP guidelines address the issue of peak VO2
prediction based on weight and acknowledge the absence of
standardization regarding the best index of body size. They
acknowledge the known miscalculations of VO2 max in obese
patients. They allude to recommendations made by several
experts about referencing VO2 to fat-free weight (FFW) and
believe that this index has the added advantage of accounting
for gender differences in VO2 max. However, the ATS/ACCP
stopped short in making this recommendation since the
routine measurement of FFW would be difficult to implement
in most conventional exercise laboratories. The ATS/ACCP
therefore recommends that VO2 max be expressed as an
absolute value and as a percentage of the predicted value.
Maximum VO2 should also be referenced to body weight
(in kilograms) and/or height in the formatting of the report
so that the impact of body size on exercise results is readily
recognized [6].
Several experts have examined the applicability of body
size and the interpretation of VO2 max. Buskirk and Taylor
made the observation that VO2 max was more closely rele-
vant to fat-free weight (FFW) than to total body weight. FFW
may not be related to level of conditioning. They stressed
the importance of calculating VO2 max in relation to lean
body mass to avoid misclassification of obese patients [2].
Hansen and associates studied 77 ex-shipyard workers, one-
third of whom were obese, defined as weight greater than
120% of expected for height. In this population, he proposed
that height should be used with age and sex as predictors of
VO2. His theory was tested using the formulas of Bruce and
coworkers who first showed the relationship between height
and weight in a sedentary middle-aged male population [3].
They used height to estimate normal weight and used the
normalized weight in all those above this value. In only 2
of 77 subjects did the measured VO2 differ widely from the
predicted VO2. Maximum VO2 was poorly predicted if actual
weight was used in their obese population.
A recent study by Sill et al. examining CPET in a similar
normal population of military personnel (mean age of 25.4
± 4.3 years, body mass index of 24.4 ± 2.8, and percent
body fat of 21.3 ± 6.1) found only a slight decrease in the
predicted normal VO2 max to 82% predicted [7]. In a 1974
study in which 710 healthy, active duty Air Force personnel
underwent maximal exercise testing, the authors published
a regression equation used to predict VO2 max. However,
the study population included only men, and the regression
equation only factored in age, making no adjustments for
height or weight. Another study evaluating exercise capacity
in a military population included 1,514 male and 375 female
active duty military personnel and reported VO2 max mean
values of 51 and 37 mL/kg/weight/min for males and females,
respectively [8].
In our study population, predicted VO2 max, when
indexed to weight, was overestimated compared to measured
VO2 max regardless of the predictive equation used. How-
ever, there was less overestimation when predicted VO2 max
was based on ideal body weight (IBW) as opposed to actual
body weight.
One of the limitations of this chart review is that approx-
imately 70% of the study population failed to achieve 84% of
predicted VO2 max. This could have been attributed to true
pathology, decreased exercise capacity, obesity, or merely not
being pushed to peak exertional capacity. The latter seems
like the most plausible explanation for at least a portion of
the subjects since evaluation of heart rates revealed that 31%
of the study population also failed to achieve 84% of their
target heart rate. Another important limitation of this study is
that the study population included symptomatic subjects who
were not an exclusively healthy group of young volunteers.
This again highlights the need for a set of population-based
norms for CPET evaluation and interpretation. Furthermore,
physical fitness impacts the correlation among the reference
equations, and the fact that only approximately one-third of
men and women in our subgroup analysis met Air Force
standards for fitness could be skewing our results.
Despite the previous limitations, this study is unique
since comparing predicted to measured VO2 max using
the variety of known prediction equations has never been
done previously. Our retrospective analysis confirmed the
wide variations in predicted versus measured VO2 based on
varying prediction equations and shows the potential advan-
tage of using ideal body weight as opposed to actual body
weight in order to further standardize reference norms. It also
illustrates the need for having population-specific reference
norms for the most relevant and accurate interpretation of
cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
Abbreviations
CPET:
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing
RER:
Respiratory exchange ratio
VCO2:
Carbon dioxide production
VO2:
Oxygen consumption
VO2 max: Maximum oxygen consumption
ATS:
American Thoracic Society
ACCP:
American College of Chest Physicians
TV:
Tidal volume
RR:
Respiratory rate
VE:
Minute ventilation
FFW:
Fat-free weight.
Disclaimer
The opinions in this paper do not constitute endorsement by
San Antonio Army Medical Center, the US Army Medical
Department, the US Army Office of the Surgeon General, the
Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US
Government of the information contained therein.
References
[1] G. J. Balady, R. Arena, K. Sietsema et al., “Clinician’s guide to
cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific state-
ment from the American heart association,” Circulation, vol.
122, no. 2, pp. 191–225, 2010.
[2] N. L. Jones, L. Makrides, C. Hitchcock, T. Chypchar, and N.
McCartney, “Normal standards for an incremental progressive
cycle ergometer test,” American Review of Respiratory Disease,
vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 700–708, 1985.
Cardiology Research and Practice
5
[3] J. E. Hansen, D. Y. Sue, and K. Wasserman, “Predicted values
for clinical exercise testing,” American Review of Respiratory
Disease, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. S49–S55, 1984.
[4] K. Wasserman, J. E. Hansen, D. Y. Sue, R. Casaburi, and B.
J. Whipp, Principles of Exercise Testing and Interpretation:
Including Pathophysiology and Clinical Applications, Lippincott,
Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 3rd edition, 1999.
[5] I. M. Weisman and R. J. Zeballos :, “A step approach to the eval-
uation of unexplained dyspnea: the role of cardiopulmonary
exercise testing,” Pulmonary Perspective, vol. 15, pp. 8–11, 1998.
[6] “American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physi-
cians statement on cardiopulmonary stress testing,” American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 167, pp.
211–277, 2003.
[7] J. M. Sill, M. J. Morris, J. E. Johnson, P. F. Allan, and V. X.
Grbach, “Cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation using
age-matched controls to evaluate exertional dyspnea,” Military
Medicine, vol. 174, no. 11, pp. 1177–1182, 2009.
[8] J. A. Vogel, J. F. Patton, R. P. Mello, and W. L. Daniels, “An anal-
ysis of aerobic capacity in a large United States population,”
Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 494–500, 1985.

Comparison of Predicted Exercise Capacity Equations and the Effect of Actual versus Ideal Body Weight among Subjects Undergoing Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing.
Ahmadian, H Reza,Sclafani, Joseph J,Emmons, Ethan E,Morris, Michael J,Leclerc, Kenneth M,Slim, Ahmad M