Fitness inversely correlated with mortality

[fisherdvm]

Based on this article in Circulation journal, 2008; 117, Feb5, pp 614 to 622. If you are a man, and able to achieve good scores on the bruce treadmill protocol, you have a lower mortality and cardiovascular risk. The Bruce protocol is as followed, performing 3 minutes at each stage, and progressing with higher speed. Then they converted the Bruce protocol to Mets. For every 1 met increase in exercise capacity, there was a 14% reduction in mortality for blacks, and 12% reduction for whites.

Stage (km/hr) (mph) Gradient
1........... 2.74...... 1.7........ 10
2........... 4.02...... 2.5........ 12
3........... 5.47...... 3.4........ 14
4........... 6.76...... 4.2........ 16
5........... 8.05...... 5.0........ 18
6........... 8.85...... 5.5........ 20
7........... 9.65...... 6.0........ 22
8........... 10.46.... 6.5........ 24
9........... 11.26.... 7.0........ 26
10......... 12.07.... 7.5........ 28

Then you convert the minutes on the Bruce protocol to METS on this calculator: Maximum Treadmill Cardiovascular Test

Your fitness category is then based on Mets achieved. Low <5, mod 5-7, high 7-10, and very high >10.

Based on this protocol and your rough estimation of how you might achieve on this test, what do you think your fitness level is?

 

[fisherdvm]

Actually, I don't consider myself fit enough.... But based on this mets thing, I am supposed to be very fit. We did the bruce protocol when I was in residency, but I can't remember what I got.

Just got off my treadmill. I quit after 9 stages.... I can't handle faster than 7 mph. It is hard to believe that the population average is only 11 minutes, or stopping at stage 4 for someone at 44 years of age.

 

[ronbeau]

Actually, I don't consider myself fit enough.... But based on this mets thing, I am supposed to be very fit. We did the Bruce protocol when I was in residency, but I can't remember what I got.

Just got off my treadmill. I quit after 9 stages.... I can't handle faster than 7 mph. It is hard to believe that the population average is only 11 minutes, or stopping at stage 4 for someone at 44 years of age.

I can believe it.

I am probably a perfect example.

I started diving in June of 2004 at age 50.
Not too long after that I started rowing on a rowing machine.
The first few times on the rowing machine I could not get past 4.5 minutes. God only knows how slow the pace was. :11doh:

Fast forward to 2008.

I now row one 30 minute continuous session per day and average between 6800 and 6900 meters (4.2 miles) per session.

I am also now 53 pounds lighter than I was in June 2004. A change in diet accompanied the exercise to achieve the weight loss.

I got down to the desired weight in December of 2006. Fifteen months later I am staying within within 3 to 4 pounds of the desired weight I achieved in December 2006.

 

[ArcticDiver]

To me there is no such thing as "Being Fit" without referencing it to a specific activity or task. An extreme example: A person can have enough fitness to be an excellent football(US) linebacker but be woefully unfit to run a marathon. The reverse is also true: A person who is wonderfully fit to run a marathon can be unfit to be a football linebacker.

No argument on your post about the relationship of treadmill performance to cardiovascular fitness and its' relationship to mortality. But, I don't think it is nitpicking too much to differentiate between Being Healthy and Being Fit.

As for me? I think that I'm very fit as it relates to what I do. But, for the people I know and associate with that is the norm.