Thoughts on the Rockport Walk Test? (Read 1010 times)

I've run across this interesting test to estimate your VO2max: Rockport 1-Mile Walk Test Does anyone know how accurate it is?

From the page you linked to, I'm assuming this comment at bottom of page is the estimates of variability: "R = 0.88; SEE ± 5.0 ml/kg/min" . R is the correlation coefficient, and SEE is standard error of the estimate. http://irp.savstate.edu/irp/glossary/correlation.html (sorry, but I'm too lazy to explain details today) Read the "Predicitive Validity" section on that link. "To yield a prediction which is 25% better than a chance or random guess, the correlation must be at least .66; to be 50% better than chance, a correlation of at least .86 is needed; to be 75% better than chance, the coefficient must rise as high as .97."" IOW, about 50% better than chance. From the link from VO2max: " If we measure a group of athletes directly and take them to the maximum and then have them perform some simpler, submaximal test, we can find an equation to extrapolate the indirect test's result to a predicted VO2 Max value. There are some problems with this - the test is not always accurate and max heart rate factors into the equation. Because the subject isn't taken to the limit, a theoretical maximum heart rate number must be used. A common estimate is 220 - age. However, if you are interested in a rough measurement to use as a base against which to measure your progress, then indirect measurement is fine. " And of course, that gets into all the HR max measurement issues. IOW, the accuracy may be able to separate the fitness levels in the VO2max table, but probably not better than that. It may tell you if your VO2max is closer to 20 ml/min/kg than to 40ml/min/kg - or whatever. I suspect the 1.5 mi test and 12-min test described on some of those other links are more accurate. Or more simply put, if you want to know your VO2max, get it measured.