Repository logo
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Log In
New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. CRIS
  3. Publication
  4. Position statement: testing of physical condition in a population - how good are the methods?
 

Position statement: testing of physical condition in a population - how good are the methods?

URI
https://arbor.bfh.ch/handle/arbor/30959
Version
Published
Date Issued
2009
Author(s)
Jørgensen, Torben
Andersen, Lars B.
Froberg, Karsten
Mäder, Urs  
Von Huth Smith, Lisa
Aadahl, Mette
Type
Article
Language
English
Subjects

Physical activity Epi...

Abstract
A poor physical condition – expressed as physical inactivity and poor physical fitness – is associated with the development of chronic diseases and premature death. Our aim was to evaluate the methods currently available for measuring physical activity and physical fitness in the general population. Physical activity is determined by duration, frequency, and intensity and derives from many different domains, making it difficult to assess over long periods and no feasible general criterion measure exists. Both objective and subjective methods are available. Of the objective methods, accelerometry is the most attractive technology, and is well enough developed for general use in large populations. The advantage of accelerometry is that it is not dependent on the memory of the individual, but its main disadvantage is that it grossly underestimates energy expenditure, due to the lack of registration of certain activities. This may be overcome to a certain extent by combining accelerometry with heart rate monitoring, although this still does not measure activity in different domains. Of the subjective methods, self-report questionnaires are inexpensive and easy to administer. Many questionnaires have been developed, but we require (1) consensus on which measures to use for validation and (2) further development of internationally standardized questionnaires for use in different settings and to address different scientific questions. Many questionnaires correlate well with biological markers and development of chronic diseases, but subjective measurement will always entail a certain degree of misclassification. Furthermore, unstructured physical activity such as housework and gardening may be subject to recall bias. No method appears better to any other, and the choice of instrument will depend on the research question being asked. Future research should combine information from both objective and subjective methods. Physical fitness comprises several components, including cardiorespiratory endurance and muscle strength and endurance. Direct measurement of oxygen consumption is the criterion measure for cardiorespiratory endurance. As regards muscle strength and endurance, only test–retest reliability is available. Hand-held dynamometers greatly facilitate field testing for maximal isometric muscle strength assessment, while force plate measurements can be used for the lower extremities. For endurance, simple tests such as push-ups and sit-ups are reliable.
DOI
10.24451/arbor.11021
https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.11021
Publisher DOI
10.1080/17461390902862664
Journal
European Journal of Sport Science
ISSN
1746-1391
Publisher URL
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17461390902862664
Related URL
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17461390902862664?needAccess=true publication
Organization
EHSM - Leistungssport  
Volume
9
Issue
5
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Submitter
ServiceAccount
Citation apa
Jørgensen, T., Andersen, L. B., Froberg, K., Mäder, U., Von Huth Smith, L., & Aadahl, M. (2009). Position statement: testing of physical condition in a population - how good are the methods? In European Journal of Sport Science (Vol. 9, Issue 5). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.11021
File(s)
Loading...
Thumbnail Image

restricted

Name

Mäder_2009_Position statement.pdf

License
Publisher
Version
published
Size

237.05 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum (MD5)

25a2e70cc9d6357f35f91117a3cf7e41

About ARBOR

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - System hosted and mantained by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback
  • Our institution