Evaluation of an Exercise Field Test Using Heart Rate Monitors to Assess Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Heart Rate Recovery in an Asymptomatic Population

PURPOSE: Measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart rate recovery (HRR) can improve risk stratification for cardiovascular disease, but these measurements are rarely made in asymptomatic individuals due to cost. An exercise field test (EFT) to assess CRF and HRR would be an inexpensive method for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in large populations. This study assessed 1) the predictive accuracy of a 12-minute run/walk EFT for estimating CRF ([Image: see text]) and 2) the accuracy of HRR measured after an EFT using a heart rate monitor (HRM) in an asymptomatic population. METHODS: Fifty subjects (48% women) ages 18–45 years completed a symptom-limited exercise tolerance test (ETT) (Bruce protocol) and an EFT on separate days. During the ETT, [Image: see text] was measured by a metabolic cart, and heart rate was measured continuously by a HRM and a metabolic cart. RESULTS: EFT distance and sex independently predicted[Image: see text]. The average absolute difference between observed and predicted [Image: see text] was 0.26±3.27 ml·kg(−1)·min(−1) for our model compared to 7.55±3.64 ml·kg(−1)·min(−1) for the Cooper model. HRM HRR data were equivalent to respective metabolic cart values during the ETT. HRR at 1 minute post-exercise during ETT compared to the EFT had a moderate correlation (r = 0.75, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A more accurate model to estimate CRF from a 12-minute run/walk EFT was developed, and HRR can be measured using a HRM in an asymptomatic population outside of clinical settings.