On the Rockport
Walk Test you state: "the subject walks as briskly as
possible for one mile". My age is 63. Will walks at a Heart
Rate of 70% of (220-63) = 110 be a good choice for me? (Denmark,
you are really walking as fast as you can for a mile, the test
speed will probably be greater than what will be recommended
for your training intensity. Since age predicted max heart rate
is quite variable from person to person, it is hard to say for
certain whether this heart rate will correspond to an intensity
that is "as briskly as possible". See Aerobic
Intensity. The important factor is you actually walk "as
briskly as possible for one mile".
The test results will suggest a starting % predicted max heart
rate (%PMHR). See Walking
Programs. Understand your PMHR
may be +/- 15 BPM so you will want to supplement your %PMHR with your
rating of perceived exertion (RPE). You may want to work up to
"Somewhat Hard" over the first few weeks, after a slower
warm up speed.
You may also estimate a starting walking speed (and incline
if you are using a treadmill) using the Walking
Metabolic Calculator. Take note of your predicted maximum
METs from the 1 mile walk test. Calculate a percentage of your
predicted METs; 50% for "poor" fitness up to 85% for
Excellent fitness. Find the appropriate speed and incline to
reach this target MET level. You would still be advised to supplement
this suggested intensity with your rating of perceived exertion.
The American College of Sports Medicine recommends a physician
to perform a Stress EKG test before VIGOROUS exercise for those
with certain risk factors; see Modified
ACSM Health Classification Questionnaire. Incidentally, an
EKG test can give you your true MHRmax. The PAR-Q or the Exercise Readiness Questionnaire
will let you know if MODERATE exercise is appropriate. In either
case, you may want ask your physician if he would suggest any
medical tests or exercise guidelines. Incidentally, if you are
on medications that affect
heart rate the test results for the 1 mile walk test will
be invalid. Good luck!
I have completed the Walk Test and determined the Suggested
Program; I would like to know if the program is to be done daily
for the 20 weeks.
The original Rockport Walking Program suggested 5 days per
week. The frequency should actually depend upon on your individual
fitness goals, available time, predisposition to certain overuse
injuries, and other activities you plan on incorporating into
your program. Some people may choose to walk everyday for various
reasons including weight management or to better control blood
sugar levels, yet, others may choose to walk 3 days a week, while
performing other activities such as weight training on alternating
days. There may be slightly more benefit with higher frequency,
but the chance of overuse injuries may increase with greater
freqency (ie: most days of the week), whereas, some people may
not have any problems on a daily walking program. Also see Aerobic Exercise Guidelines
for Specific Goals.
Great site, use and recommend it all the time. In making
some improvements to a weight loss spreadsheet I built, I was
using the Run/ Walk
calculator to confirm usage of the formula its based
on. I found an issue.
So the METs and the VO2 results is based on simple
formula, totally based on speed. So if speed doubles, those should
Try walking 2 mph, NET results 1.5 METs and
5.4 VO2. Right on, 53.6448 meters/min * 0.1= VO2, and VO2/3.5=METs.
Now try walking 4 mph, NET results 3.9 METs and
13.6 VO2. Nope, 107.2896 meters/min * 0.1 = 10.7 VO2, and 10.7/3.5=3.1
METs. That of course messes up the calorie calculation
too when you take VO2*kg/200*minutes.
I figured out the turning point in accuracy in the walk/run
calc. 3.73 is correct. 3.74 is incorrect.
Why in the world it would take a nose dive then I cant
tell. Since the corresponding meters/min also is wrong at that
point, cant be the metric conversion from MPH.
Im guessing either the ACSM formula changed from
2000 and youve applied it to some in-between speeds, even
though I cant find comment of that on any other sites yet.
Or there is a real issue in the formula for some strange
reason? Ive not looked at running speeds over 8 mph to
see any issue there, but 5-8 seem fine on running.
I created this calculator
in Oct-Nov 2004, so it took me a bit of time to review the various
steps and formulas I had used and to recall issues involving
its development. Notice in the ACSMs
Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription the notation
for the ACSM walking formula (page 173 of the most recent 9th
edition). Youll notice the ACSM formula is most accurate
for speeds at 50-100 m/min. And as I hope you will see, there
is a good reason for that upper range limitation.
The formula used I used to predict energy expenditures beyond
100 m/min was created by Bubb, Martin & Howley (source also
cited on the walk/run
In fact, I invited Dr. Edward T Howley, [incidentally, also
a former President of ACSM (2002-2003)] to review the ExRx.net
calculator shortly after I posted it on ExRx.net. We primarily
discussed the contrast between figures in one of his textbooks
Professionals Handbook) which round figures early in the
the shift in METs using his formula.
At first glance, this jump in METs may appear to be a disparity
possibly caused by some discrepancy or population variations
from two different studies. However, this sudden rise in energy
requirements makes much more sense once you plot out the resulting
data on a graph and think about its implications. In April 2012
did just that, displaying the running
and walking efficiencies of various speeds.
You can see a distinct jump in energy requirements around
the point in which you had identified where faster walking speeds
become less energy efficient instead of more efficient. If energy
expenditure for walking where linear we would likely be able
to walk much faster. I hope
that clarifies this distinct shift the energy requirements of
walking and my decision to use an additional formula to estimate
walking energy requirements above 100 m/min.