Validity of submaximal aerobic capacity and strength tests in firefighters

Abstract

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.