Validity of submaximal aerobic capacity and strength tests in firefighters.

Abstract

Background: Typically, the fitness of UK firefighters is assessed via submaximal estimate methods due to the low demands on time, money, expertise and equipment. However, the firefighter-specific validity of such testing in relation to maximum aerobic capacity (V˙O2max) and particularly muscular strength is not well established.

Aims: To examine the validity of submaximal methods to estimate V˙O2max and maximal strength in operational firefighters.

Methods: Twenty-two full-time operational firefighters (3 female) completed same-day submaximal (Chester Step Test; CST) and maximal (treadmill) assessments of V˙O2max, with a sub-sample of 10 firefighters (1 female) also completing submaximal and maximal back-squat (i.e. one repetition maximum; 1RM) assessments. All participants then completed the Firefighter Simulation Test (FFST) within 2-4 days.

Results: CST underestimated actual V˙O2max by 1.4 ml·kg-1·min-1 (~3%), although V˙O2max values were positively correlated (r = 0.61, P < 0.01) and not significantly different. Estimated V˙O2max values negatively correlated with FFST performance (r = -0.42). Predicted 1RM underestimated actual 1RM by ~2%, although these values were significantly correlated (r = 0.99, P < 0.001) and did not significantly differ. The strongest predictive model of FFST performance included age, body mass index, and direct maximal measures of 1RM and V˙O2max.

Conclusions: Submaximal back-squat testing offers good validity in estimating maximum firefighter strength without exposure to the fatigue associated with maximal methods. The CST provides a reasonably valid and cost-effective V˙O2max estimate which translates to firefighting task performance, although the error observed means it should be used cautiously when making operational decisions related to V˙O2max benchmarks.