5 ms·
Treadmill Performance Predicts Mortality
- slagfart 12y agoDoes anyone have a link to the chart described at the bottom of the article?
- ISL 12y agoNot sure if it's globally visible, but the paper is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619614011367# http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619614... Figure 1 is the money plot. In short, FIT scores below 0 show survival percentages that drop roughly linearly from ~90% down to 25% at a FIT of -200. Above a FIT of 0, survival percentages rise roughly linearly to near 100%. TL;DR: you want your FIT score to be better than 0.
- jsprogrammer 12y agoYou do not have access to the content that you requested. Please review your options for gaining access at the bottom of the page.
- byEngineer 12y agocorporate thought police in the field of medicine. How low...
- kiers77 12y agoFIT Treadmill Score = MPHR + 12(METs) - 4(age) + (43 pts bonus for being female). Note if you are 50 years old male, your age docks you 200 points off the top! so you start at -200, then assume you "DO" reach your maximal heartrate (acc to "220-age" ) then you are still at -100 for mortality. Only your METs, can then push your FIT number to a value greater than zero (if the MET number is > 9). Does anyone know what unit the METs are measured in for this "FIT" metric? wikipedia indicates MET values of activities range from 0.9 (sleeping) to 23 (running at 22.5 km/h or a 4:17 mile pace). I have never run at a 4:17 pace. So it is these elite athletes whose MET numbers (times 12) enable them to score so high on this "FIT" metric. The average joe will only get a MET around 7 i'd imagine, bringing the MET contribution to around 84 points only. having said that, the survival curve FLATTENS out above zero "FIT" score. so elite/high METs contributions to the "FIT" score beyond zero will not necessarily increase survival, but it does imply less chance of cardio being cause of death.
- ctz 12y agohttp://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)01136-7/pdf http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)0... It'll cost you $31.50 to rent for 24 hours. Elsevier thanks you for your custom.
- DennisP 12y agoOr, hypothetically, an unscrupulous person could go to r/scholar, check the right sidebar for the link to libgen, and search by the DOI, which in this case is 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.12.013 ...but I'm sure nobody here would stoop to such things.
- ctchocula 12y agohttp://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/03/04/article/ http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/03/04/article/
- jdc 12y agoCompare with: Prognostic Value of Treadmill Exercise Testing http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/98/25/2836.long http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/98/25/2836.long Maximal Exercise Testing Variables and 10-Year Survival Fitness Risk Score Derivation From the FIT Project http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)01136-7/abstract http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)0...
- Someone 12y agoAlso, from the Christmas edition of the British Medical Journal (where somewhat serious articles with a funny side are a tradition): *"How fast does the Grim Reaper walk? Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis in healthy men aged 70 and over" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3240682/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3240682/)
- rpackard 12y agoI am really interested in how this is measured. I have found this info on free sources so far "The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female]" And this from another interview. "In addition to age and gender, the formula factors in peak heart rate reached during intense exercise and the ability to tolerate physical exertion as measured by so-called metabolic equivalents, or METs, a gauge of how much energy the body expends during exercise. More vigorous activities require higher energy output (higher METs), better exercise tolerance and higher fitness level. An activity such as slow walking equals two METs, compared with eight for running." If anyone has access to the paper and could better show the algorithm I would be super thankful. EDIT: I think I figured out more but still not positive about MET unless the 2 for if heart rate hit max walking and 8 for if heart rate hit max with running. [(Measured Heart Rate Max/(220-age))100 + 12MET - 4*age + (43 if female)]
- lucaspiller 12y agoSo basically the closer your actual maximum heart rate when excersising vs your age estimated maximum heart rate[0] the healthier you are. [0] http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/hrmax http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/hrmax
- sfeng 12y agoIf I'm reading it correctly, it's actually the higher your maximum heart rate is, when compared to your age estimate. If your percentage is over 100, it would give you a higher score, even as your number gets less 'close'.
- mrfusion 12y agoI'm confused though because as you increase your endurance your heart is able to get more oxygen to your body while beating slowing. For example the heart rate of a marathon runner's first mile might not look much different than you or I going on a walk.
- msandford 12y ago
- nate112358 12y agoCorrelation is not causation. since this study is not experimental we can't assume that increasing your FIT score will improve mortality.
- mfringel 12y agoCompletely correct. "Correlation" and "causation" are spelled differently, and have different numbers of letters.
- testingonprod 12y agoThere are probably a ton of confounding variables at play here that aren't being accounted for.
- kiers77 12y agodamn straight. take this "paper" with a pinch of salt!
- dceddia 12y ago"What does it say Moss, does it say I'm already dead?" "Oh, no, that'd be terrible." "Oh thank--" "It's Thursday."
- kurokikaze 12y ago"The results are in. Yep, you're mortal."