Commentary on the Assessment and Interpretation of Pediatric Aerobic Fitness—The Year That Was 2017

Abstract

Three papers, which between them contribute to the current debate on the assessment and interpretation of pediatric aerobic fitness, were selected for commentary. The first paper (Children. 2017; 4:6; doi:10.3390/children4010006) highlights the merits of clinical exercise testing and advocates the advancement of pediatric exercise testing through a rationale founded on demonstrated prognostic value of data obtained. It notes the lack of well-accepted definitions of exercise outcome variables in children and promotes the case for data harmonization across laboratories. The second paper (J Appl Physiol. 2017; 122: 997–1002) argues persuasively that the acceptance of peak oxygen uptake (peak ) at the termination of an exercise test to voluntary exhaustion as a surrogate for a “true” maximal value (ie, ) is no longer tolerable. The authors present a compelling case for the adoption of a follow-up verification test to unambiguously validate the achievement of . The third paper (Br J Sports Med. 2017; 1–10, doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097982) compiles large, previously published datasets to provide a review of temporal trends in 20-m shuttle run test scores. The authors assert that temporal trends in 20-m shuttle run test performance provide meaningful insight into trends in population health. The commentary stresses the importance of scientific rigor in pediatric exercise testing, emphasizes the use of precise definitions when describing health-related variables, and cautions against the misuse of exercise outcome measures in recommendations relating to or impacting on young people’s health and well-being.