Talk:Bruce protocol

Results section clarification

I have pasted a table from the article "Bruce Protocol" below.

Bruce Protocol

Stage Min  % grade MPH METS 1 3 10 1.7 4.7 2 6 12 2.5 7.0 3 9 14 3.4 10.1 4 12 16 4.2 12.9 5 15 18 5.0 15.0

Can you tell me the reference source Wikipedia used in coming up with this table?

Thank you.

Next time, be mindful of the fact that while English may be the international language, the imperial system of measurement we inherited from our British colonial masters is not the international language of measurement. Metric system is, so please always put metric equivalents if the original source is imperial only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.232.38 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see any source anywhere for these METS calculations! But thanks for sharing this because I've never seen the .X accuracy, I've only seen whole numbers before Full Decent (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also I think you may be missing a value between 10.1 and 12.9. Full Decent (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Results section clarification

Could someone confirm whether the 2nd and 3rd bullets in the Results section are labeled correctly? Looking at the rest of the table, I'm wondering if bullet 3 should be labeled "Young Women" instead.

• VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 14.76 - (1.379 × T) + (0.451 × T²) - (0.012 × T³)

• Women: VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 2.94 x T + 3.74

• Women: VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 4.38 × T - 3.9

• Men: VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 2.94 x T + 7.65

• Young Men: VO2max (ml/kg/min) = 3.62 x T + 3.91

ref: ACSM's Health-Related Physical Fitness Assessment Manual

Brad (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improperly sourced article

As of this writing, both the original version of this article and the version are improperly sourced. The original refers to a now-removed link, but following the filename, I came across article, which is also not properly sourced. The original Bruce papers currently cited from 1949 refer only to a _constant_ walking speed of 2.6 mph (4.2 kph) for 10 minutes on a _level_ surface. Thus, either this article is bunk, another source was used, or Bruce's name is improperly attached.

In a version from 2012, a cited article from 2002 indicates the "The Bruce protocol is the most widely adopted protocol and has been extensively validated." Sadly, no citations are given to this claim. Perhaps User:Rsweeney can explain why they used this?

Perhaps User:DiverDave can explain why he replaced the more useful citation above with citations from Bruce's publications that are completely _irrelevant_ to this article?

And perhaps someone can find Bruce's actual protocol paper or one of its validations? Sadly, my Google foo gets lots of derivative stuff. Otheus (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)