Slashdot Mirror
Treadmill Performance Predicts Mortality
An anonymous reader writes: Cardiologists from Johns Hopkins have published an analysis of exercise data that strongly links a patient's performance on a treadmill to their risk of dying. Using data from stress tests of over 58,000 people, they report: "[A]mong people of the same age and gender, fitness level as measured by METs and peak heart rate reached during exercise were the greatest indicators of death risk. Fitness level was the single most powerful predictor of death and survival, even after researchers accounted for other important variables such as diabetes and family history of premature death — a finding that underscores the profound importance of heart and lung fitness, the investigators say." The scoring system is from -200 to +200. People scoring between -100 and 0 face an 11% risk of dying in the next decade. People scoring between -200 and -100 face a 38% risk of death within the next decade. People scoring above zero face only a 3% chance or less.
The walking speed of the grim reaper was calculated in 2011
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7679
and reviewed in this article
http://www.oandp.com/articles/2014-06_04.asp
Of course , it isn't as high tech as the American version, but walking speed was already known to predict mortality.
...but I'm also not risk-averse. What I have had so far is luck, and luck is something that runs out, just like any statistical judgment applied to an individual.
Runnung on a treadmill?!
What is with this -200 - 200 BS /age, length of time at a given heart rate. Just saying people who score over 100 are a strong indicator is meaningless unless we know how this number is calculated. I am sick of the media hiding science details and math from the public. No wonder why so many people do not trust science, the media covering it treats it like a magic box, that only special people with a PHD can get.
At least tell us how to get these numbers. Is it based in heart rate, O2 levels, speed
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Oh, you are free to not do it, but unless you do the bank, the insurance company won't accept you as a customer. Also, since the HR department doesn't have good data on your health you are sketchy and you won't get a job.
Just click on the link:
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female]
they are using an hp calculator which is based off an array of abacus, so it only has -200 beads to +200 beads.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Does the daily treadmill at the office also count?
bickerdyke
On a treadmill I can get my heartrate up to 83 no problem in 10 minutes or less. According to the chart, that means I have a body of a pre-teen. Now, apparently, this will mean I have another 70+ years to go... I'm 45.
strongly links a patient's performance on a treadmill to their risk of dying.
Sounds like the best way to prolong your life is to avoid treadmills
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Unless you were doing the treadmill dance of OK, GO.
Then it's 100% risk of death in the next 10 seconds.
I, for one, am shocked to find out that smoking is harmful to your health, and that high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and lack of exercise might lead to an early death.
They should win the goddamn Nobel prize.
What is with this -200 - 200 BS /age, length of time at a given heart rate. Just saying people who score over 100 are a strong indicator is meaningless unless we know how this number is calculated. I am sick of the media hiding science details and math from the public. No wonder why so many people do not trust science, the media covering it treats it like a magic box, that only special people with a PHD can get.
At least tell us how to get these numbers. Is it based in heart rate, O2 levels, speed
It's funny you mention a link that only someone with a PHD will get. Perhaps that's because there's a damn good chance only a PhD will "get it".
But hey yeah, let me know what you think of the laymans chance of "getting it" after you read through it. I discuss the breakdown of O2 levels across genetic traits all the time around the watercooler.
Fit people live longer? Wow, what a surprise.
But why a threadmill? This can also be measured by running, swimming, playing football or a persons ability to catch small horses.
Sometimes you wonder why any of this needs to be studied? In general a fit person has less disease, a slower standing heart rate, lower blood pressure and generally better quality of health. Although genetics play a significant role negatively in a persons health. Some skinny otherwise healthy people have high blood pressure or diabetes. Stress is also another negative on a otherwise healthy lifestyle. Personally, I think the lack of movement, the over dependence on devices and machines reducing our physical labor and movements are over all affecting our health. Not to mention the less physical activity added with our over eating has contributed a lot to bad health.
I guess my overweight 93 year old aunt who sat in a chair in front of TV soap operas for decades blows this theory apart....still kicking
We already knew that healthier people have a smaller chance of dying, that's basically the definition of being healthy.
So this study only shows health and fitness are related.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Communism only relates to the way you organize your economy.
The point of this research is probably to allow doctors to make better estimates as to when a patient might die.
Capitalism can be just as bad as communism if you don't regulate the economy. You need some of both.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Spriometry is used by respirologists to basically measure how much air you can suck in and then blow out (among other parameters like lung inflation, exhale velocity, etc.). It was essentially invented around 1846 by John Hutchinson who believed its best use would be by the insurance industry as this volume was strongly correlated to premature death -- the less air you can blow out, the less time you have left! Hence the name for this quantity that we still use in medicine today: vital capacity.
"1846 The water spirometer measuring vital capacity was developed by a surgeon named John Hutchinson. He invented a calibrated bell, inverted in water, which was used to capture the volume of air exhaled by a person. John published his paper about his water spirometer and the measurements he had taken from over 4,000 subjects,[2] describing the direct relationship between vital capacity and height and inverse relationship between vital capacity with age. He also showed that vital capacity does not relate to weight at any given height. He also used his machine for the prediction of premature mortality. He coined the term vital capacity, which was claimed as a powerful prognosis for heart disease by Framingham study. He believed that his machine should be used as an acturial predictions for companies selling life insurances"
Hey mate, spare a sig?
As long as you can do better than a police officer, you're okay.
So 1/5 of their scale is already offset-ted depending on gender. That makes me rise an eyebrow : it should be a factor, not an offset...
You can't outrun a radio or a drone, son.
> strongly links a patient's performance on a treadmill to their risk of dying
I'm fairly sure that US Marines, French Foreign Legion troops or russian paratroopers all do well on the treadmill. Apparently, treadmill routine makes them bullet-proof and gives them an ability to 6th-sense IEDs in advance, thus accounting for their low mortality on the battlefield?
Or does the Heisenberg principle not apply on treadmills?
Place something witty here
There is an old test known as the Schneider Index which was used by the US Navy for divers and pilots in the 1940s. An old movie called "Dive Bomber" shows details of how the test was done at the time. The test ended the flying careers for many pilots at the time if their score decreased much. It turns out that the guys who did best in the test were the ones most likely to pass out on dive bombing runs. The Schneider Index uses reclining heart rate, blood pressure with standing and then rapid activity for about 30 seconds and then factoring in increase in pulse, BP and the time to return to normal.
In these fitness tests they monitor blood pressure and ECG and will stop you if your blood pressure gets too high or the ECG shows that your heart does not get enough oxygen anymore. For that reason persons can easily overestimate both maximum MET and maximum heart rate. People can reach higher running speeds and heart rates but will put their heart in danger by doing so.
Jan
I really hate it when people don't use percentage as a decimal, but it still beets the IRS "Combine" algebraic operator.
I get 73 from a recent stress test. Who hoo, Still Alive! Wife still kicks my ass with a 130 though.
I really hate it when people don't use percentage as a decimal, but it still beets the IRS "Combine" algebraic operator.
I get 73 from a recent stress test. Who hoo, Still Alive! Wife still kicks my ass with a 130 though.
For a guy who hates mistakes in number formats, you seem to have a very relaxed attitude towards spelling homonyms correctly.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This seems like an... exercise in futility?
I mean, the dude in front of me successfully running a two-mile stretch in 14 minutes is impressive and all, but having a tight body ain't gonna save him from getting T-boned 15 minutes out from the gym.
That -200 +200 is in there because 200 bpm is pretty much a humans maximum heart rate. So this is a test of how long it takes for you to reach your maximum heart rate and then based on age how close the rate is to your predicted rate.
Well, we need to get some fatter police officers. Bring on the donuts!
Peer-reviews on everything I write below are greatly appreciated. I want to make sure I understand this equation.
io9 has a pretty down-to-earth explanation of the equation:
FIT Treadmill Score = %MPHR + 12(METS) - 4(age) + 43(if female)
You can get your MPHR for your age here. I found a chart of METS here for various exercises.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly. If I reach a 160 heart rate out of 179.0 MPHR predicted for my 41 years of age while running 12 minute miles worth 8.5 METS. My score would be:
83.7 + 12(8.5) - 4(41) = 21.7
The same heart rate for my age running 8 minute miles:
83.7 + 12(8.5) - 4(41) = 69.7
If I am understanding this correctly, it really looks like you could easily improve your score with a few lifestyle choices (push yourself harder when you work out, eat healthier). This equation could be a great metric for people concerned about their health
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The study is much better, and the link much stronger, than the foolishness about how sitting increases your risk of death no matter whether or not you exercise.
Didn't RTFA, but... Age is a pretty big part of this formula. If you're 50, thats a hit of -200 points, which is half of the entire scale. So basically we've discovered that old people are more likely than young people to die in the next decade?
Right, because capitalist insurance companies would never abuse this kind of info to deny coverage.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Capitalism can be just as bad as communism if you don't regulate the economy. You need some of both.
Communism "regulates the economy". So regulating the economy is bad. But, not regulating the economy is also bad.
Or do you mean the regulating the economy is good? And that if you regulate it under Communism or Capitalism it's all good. Of course this means there would be no fundamental difference between Capitalism and Communism.
So, in your opinion, which economic system does not regulate the economy?
"sketchy" does not mean what you think it does.
The fitness scale (FIR treadmill Score) should be a scalar representing the healthiness relative to people to each other. if you add a fix scalar to your fitness scale for a group (+43 female) you are stating by default "all my female group are shifted artificially on the scale upward". At the same age, same percentage of heart rate (say 100% for that task) and the same task or at least same equivalent metabolic rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent) you are de facto stating "my female are fitter on the threadmill" when there is no indication of that. In fact the score is built in such a way that for the same equivalent metabolic task, same age, a male individual has to beat its heart rate at 43% higher. That makes no sense whatsoever to me. They are not the only one doing that, the rockport scale (the 1 mile one) do it too whereas the VO2 pedersen scale does not.
When you Gender has a far more heavier factor in your fitness scale than your heart completion rate, your weight or any other fitness equivalent, I view it with suspicion mister anonymous. because essentially you state that no matter what at the same heart rate , same weight, same VO2 max consumption, essencially same body muscle and heart health but being female and same effort, by virtue of being female you are healthier and by quite a big factor.
Have we got numbers on how many people got injured/killed by treadmills on a yearly basis? I guess those are for the 3% for people scoring above 0.
No, they knew that already and took it into account when they made their formula. Then they added some other predictors, e.g. being male (already known), being able to do a strenuous task, and your heart rate being able to clock up to a decent rate.
The latter two are the new ones.
Of course, this is slashdot, and if you incorporate any past knowledge into your new work, that work can't possibly be new or informative.
My (perhaps flawed) impression is that a socialist says "I am a socialist", while a communist says "You are too".
Fitness level was the single most powerful predictor of death
Who'd a thunk?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This bottle of snakeoilism will cure all your economic ills!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That's odd. Everyone who took it had a 100% chance of dying at some point.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You are basically right,but to complie with the test correctly you would need to find you MET doing the following.
Calculating your own score.
So how exactly is it done? The test consists of three-minute segments that increase in speed and incline. In the study, people exercised until they were fatigued, felt chest discomfort, or until a clinician saw something suggesting lack of blood flow to the heart, says Ahmed. Below is an example of the stages of incline and speed from the Bruce Protocol:
Stage 1 1.7 mph/10% grade/5 METs
Stage 2 2.5 mph/12% grade/7 METs
Stage 3 3.4 mph/14% grade/10 METs
Stage 4 4.2 mph/16% grade/13 METs
Stage 5 5.0 mph/18% grade/15 METs
Stage 6 5.5 mph/20% grade/18 METs
Stage 7 5.5 mph/22% grade/20 METs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Attempt to create a false dichotomy.
There can be too little of a good thing, and there can be too much of a good thing.
Me, I know where my place in society is. And I know that too much regulation will do me less harm than too little. Inequality of power and all that.
when does this chart end?
i'm literally going to the gym in like 3 mins to run 10 miles at a 9.0mph.
i have this ? about stress tests generally
to get it down in 3 minute increments they are going to have to max that machine.
Thank you. This is just what I needed to know. I can't wait to try it out at the gym tonight. : )
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female], ranged from 200 to 200 across the cohort, was near normally distributed, and was found to be highly predictive of 10-year survival
I demand equal life expectancy for equal fitness!
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Stephen Hawking. I wonder what his score was ten years ago.
So it wasn't a random sample. It was people who had visited the doctor/hospital with complaints of chest pain, shortness of breath, fainting or dizziness. Well right there, you'd think the ones who were further along in a disease causing those symptoms when they first visited a doctor would score worse at the treadmill test. And they'd have a greater risk of death in the next few years since they were further along the illness.
I assure you, in my line of work not only does HR not want care about your long term viability, it sure as hell doesn't want you taking time off work* to be at the gym. They'll happily juice your husk until it can no longer serve the shareholder and toss it out in the new Environmentally Friendly (TM) Compost Heap. Given the endless legions of unemployed and the opportunity to tap the limitless H1-B market, they're guaranteed to have employees!
*By time off work I mean any point in a 24 hour day.
Well, according to this, I should have died a year ago.
Luckily, the one-two punch of HIPAA and ACA ("Obamacare") made what you describe illegal in the US, so that's only an option in other countries unless one or both of those laws change. And HIPAA isn't under attack by butthurt Republicans.
HIPAA made it illegal. The ACA made it mandatory.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It still seems awfully suspicious that their carefully constrained +/-200 range has an age multiplier of precisely 4. This smells like the use of BMI to gauge individuals when it was only ever meant to be an expedient way to measure populations.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
If you are at the early stages of Alzheimer's you really don't want to prolong your life.
If I am understanding this correctly, it really looks like you could easily improve your score with a few lifestyle choices (push yourself harder when you work out, eat healthier).
Not necessarily. The "eat healthier part", yes, but I have been hearing about some studies lately that indicate that pushing harder is not necessarily better. They are indicating that pushing yourself too hard can limit the benefits to the same levels as not pushing hard enough. Basically, the most benefit is derived from a moderate level of exercise.
They could have asked me! I have know that being in bad shape and having heart problems increases the chance of you dying for decades! Why am I not rich?
From what I read, they looked at people who took a stress test, and the ones who did well tended to live longer. What I'm wondering is, were the ones who did well people who were exercising diligently to get there?
There's a presumption that the people who didn't do well, if they worked out and lived healthier lives generally so that they improved their scores, would automatically be as healthy as the ones who were already doing well. But were the ones who did well from the getgo doing well because they had been exercising etc?
I'm not trying to say that exercise and eating right isn't a good idea. I'm just thinking that what is measured isn't only the result of a good lifestyle but also something more intrinsic, maybe genetic.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Your max heart rate at age 40 is 180.
mets Running a 12 min/mile (~5 mph) is 8.5
This means at 105 beats per minute your score is:
%MPHR + 12(METS) - 4(age) = ((105/180)*100) + (12*8.5)-(4*40) = 0.33
at 104 it's -0.22, so the break point is 105 beats er minute
MPHR (Max Predicted Heart Rate) = 220 - age.
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
3% of people scoring above zero have a risk of dying in the next decade. Not 3% of people score above zero, although that might be true among slashdotters.
Only I can judge you.
So you're saying that a human is more likely to die with a weak hearth and weak lungs, as compared to weak fingers. Interesting. I guess vital organs really are vital.
The chart continues extra 0.5 mph and 2% each stage until you can't cope anymore, but the MET has been rounded in the example I found and stop at stage 7, so I didn't want to incorrectly guess the next figures.
The statistics are accurate. Dead people score zero METs.
Um, you did see the % grade numbers in there, right?
Running at 5.5 mph up a 22% grade??? I don't know you at all (obviously), but would be very surprised -- nay, /floored/ -- if you make it past Stage 7. A 22% grade is effing insane to continue on for very long.
I run marathons. I do ok at them and can sustain 7.5 mph to 8 mph for 26.2 miles (a little over 3 hours). I even like running uphill. But not at 22%. I doubt I would make it past Stage 6 on this scale, looking at those grades.
I don't even know if most treadmills will *do* much steeper than 22%.
So howabout if you make it past Stage 7 (doubtful) and are feeling close to done, give yourself 23 METs, and if you feel like you can keep on going for a long while (!!!) then give yourself 25? I got those numbers mostly from looking at the rate at which the METs increase as you go down the given categories, but otherwise they came out of thin air. However I am quite skeptical that either of these will come to pass anyway...
I do ok at them and can sustain 7.5 mph to 8 mph for 26.2 miles (a little over 3 hours)
Argh. I meant 8 mph to 8.5 mph. I can't math today I have the dumb.
My point still stands.
It seems to me that this test predicts mortality primarily because heart disease is currently the #1 cause of death in America. So if you measure cardiovascular health, statistically you're also going to be successful in predicting mortality. But my excellent heart health doesn't seem likely to stop me from dying of cancer or ALS or any of those other things. All it says is that heart disease won't kill me early. And maybe that, since the others develop more slowly, I'll live a few years longer before dying in some other way.