You are on page 1of 11

Downloaded from bjsm.bmj.

com on 30 March 2009

Physical Fitness of Canadian Physical Education Students with a Note on International Differences
Roy J. Shephard and Peter Pimm Br. J. Sports Med. 1975;9;165-174 doi:10.1136/bjsm.9.4.165

Updated information and services can be found at:

These include:

Rapid responses Email alerting service

You can respond to this article at:

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top right corner of the article


To order reprints of this article go to:

To subscribe to British Journal of Sports Medicine go to:

8 ml. School of Hygiene. two of the 4-5 students usually perform a sub-maximal exercise text on the bicycle ergometer. 21. al. on 30 March 2009 165 PHYSICAL FITNESS OF CANADIAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION STUDENTS WITH A NOTE ON INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES Roy J. if those who are destined to teach this subject are not themselves commited to the idea of maintaining personal fitness. There seem national differences between endurance-oriented Scandinavian students and heavy.2. 78 men and 83 women. al. Perhaps most importantly. 1972).3.S. 1960). Denmark (Asmussen and Mathiasen.. contact-sport oriented North Americans. Lastly. 28.bmj. the discrepancy being 5-6% for the men and 8-9% for the women. University of Toronto ABSTRACT Measurements of physical fitness have been carried out on 161 University of Toronto physical and health education students.9 ml. 1966. Sweden (Astrand. the United Kingdom (Sloan. (Sloan. et. min for female smokers. 1972). Results are compared with published information on physical education students from other nations. bicycle ergometer predictions of \'O2 (max) over-estimate direct treadmill readings for this group. b). 1963).7%)./kg. SHEPHARD & Peter PIMM Dept.0. min in the male non-smokers. and the remainder had a relatively light cigarette consumption.9 and 27. 51. knee extension force and vital capacity./kg.3 cigarettes/day and 7 women 8. of Environmental Health. the average V02 (max) was 49. Physical education students also form a clearly identified stratum of University Society. 1963. Watson and JenningsWhite. it is thus of interest to compare directly measured and predicted maximum oxygen intake readings for Canadian physical and health education students.3 mm) with estimates of body fat (18. The simpler anthropometric measurements are performed on the whole class./kg. min in the female non-smokers. 144 of the students were non-smokers. al. Depending on the enthusiasm of a particular class group. analysing separately the results for smokers and non-smokers. and two students (usually the remaining members of the group) perform a direct measurement of maximum oxygen intake on the treadmill. then their likelihood of influencing others to become fit seems small... lung volumes are poorer in the smokers than in the non-smokers. The more fit members of the group tended to volunteer for maximum testing. 1963. Allowing for this factor. 1974) and the U. South Africa (Sloan. 1969). METHODS During their laboratory course in exercise physiology.7 ml. while less fit subjects elected sub-maximum test procedures. The world literature contains many reports based on small volunteer samples from physical education classes. The present paper contributes data on 164 Canadian students. physical and health education students at the University of Toronto carry out the I.B. 1962). muscle strength and lean mass support the view that although most students perceive themselves as fit. INTRODUCTION The level of fitness attained by physical and health education students has practical interest for several reasons.5 and 15. Swedish physical education students provided the original material or a widely used method of predicting maximum oxygen intake (Astrand.0 ml. et. groups of 4-5 students working from a very detailed laboratory manual under the close supervision of an instructor. 10 men averaging 12. Bottin et. 1966. Even at the first laboratory visit. Despite a recent and fairly light cigarette habit. neither the men nor the women have an exceptional capacity for endurance work.P.Downloaded from bjsm. with relatively homogeneous patterns of activity and it is thus arguable that international comparisons of fitness based on such populations might have more validity than comparisons of heterogeneous "laboratory normal" subjects./kg. Data is recorded on prepared laboratory record . 19. 13. measurements of physical fitness (Weiner and Lourie. 37. the entire third and fourth year classes at the University of Toronto. together with readings for grip strength. Relevant publications include studies from Belgium (Heiters. min for male smokers and 42. but there is less information on the status of randomly selected students or entire classes. Measurements of skinfold thicknesses (average readings for four groups 12.7 cigarettes/day. 1968a.5.

5 ± 1. and occasional aberrant results for entire groups of 5 students that indicated careless calibration of equipment or failure to follow instructions.001) and the female smokers (1 1. and 6.1 > P > 0.9 cm taller than non-smokers (t79 = 1. Physical characteristics. but above predictions in the women (+10. ratios for the non-smokers were a little less than predicted for normal sedentary subjects. the one-second forced expiratory volume was slightly below normal in the men. P < 0. Lung Volumes In all four groups of subjects. 0.Downloaded from bjsm.05). P < 0. female non-smokers (n = 76).8 kg in smokers).08. P < 0. The average deficit was larger in the smokers (3. When lean mass and body fat were expressed in units of kg per cm of standing height. 0. with the boys one year older than the girls (Table I). Despite these precautions. but there were occasional "mature" students up to the age of 32. male smokers (n = 10) and female smokers (n = 7).0 ± 2. the vital capacity exceeded the age and height predicted values given by the equations of Anderson et al. all subjects continued to exercise to exhaustion. Among the female students. respiratory gas ex- . the smokers were significantly fatter (P < 0.E. but this could be explained entirely by their difference in standing height (respective excess weights relative to modified scale of Society of Actuaries -1.C.01). 8.0 ± 5. A surprisingly large number of students (10 M.5%. (1968). and students are assigned a mark based on the adequacy of their work.63. 2-25/day in the men.9%.6. Although average readings were a little lower in the smokers (1.1 > P > 0.5 kg in non-smokers and 9. however. and carelessness must be suspected.05 in the women). Data have been divided into four basic populations male non-smokers (n = 68). However. SP'.0 mm. 1.05).0%. Aerobic power and muscle strength Among the non-smokers./ O/N I+ 1/N2) whereSP2 =NI ** (S12) +N2 CS22) N1 +N2 (Dixon & Massey.4%. there were a few items students failed to record on their data sheets.05). P < 0.5%o lower in male smokers. The mean results shown exclude aberrant and missing readings.V.0 mm. t6 7 = 2.6 ± 3. The average F. P < 0. t76 = 3.1%.7 kg heavier than the non-smokers (respective excess weights relative to modified scale of Society of Actuaries [Shephard.7 ± 2.0% in the females). as were differences in body fat and lean mass per kg of standing height.5% in males. 1974] 5. with no guidance as to the aerobic power of the subject other than his or her response to the warm-up exercise. n. P < 0. Percentages of body fat were calculated according to a modification of the equation of Durnin and Ramahan (1967). and here deliberate modesty was presumably involved.001). Nevertheless. P < 0.15 Q/min during direct measurements of maximum oxygen intake (Table IlIl).V. This finding reflects the large vital capacity rather than any impairment of one second flow.01).5 ± 1.0.9 kg in smokers. and a comparison of heart rates. 4.0 was 5. 1969) as + Average skinfold readings have been calculated subscapular + suprailiac folds. the difference was statistically insignificant in the males. but was significant in the females (A2.63.s.1.3 mm in the smokers) the difference was statistically insignificant. 5-11/day in the women). The average F.1 kg in non-smokers and 1.3 ± 8. Percentages * The significance of differences between means of unequally sized groups has been calculated according to the formula Xl -X2 t= because of the small size of the group and the low and variable cigarette consumption. The absence of a clear plateau in some subjects seems an almost inevitable problem when but a single test is performed. the advantage being significant for the male non-smokers ( on 30 March 2009 166 sheets.01) but not more muscular than the nonsmokers. Among the boys. some also missed height and weight.5%. in the men. The majority of students fell within quite a narrow age band.E.bmj. Although there was a suggestion of thicker skinfolds in the smokers (respective mean values 13.* Skinfold readings show that much of the extra weight of the male smokers was fat (A7. The majority of smokers had a moderately high cigarette consumption for athletes (12.88.6%.3 mm in noh-smokers.05). this was not the case with the girls. the smokers were again heavier than the non-smokers. 15.70 ± 2.05). There were no differences of height between male smokers and non-smokers but female smokers were 4.3 ± 2. 12 (triceps) A little over a half of our sample reached a plateau of oxygen intake < 0. 0. the female non-smokers (12.6% lower in female smokers. t7-6 = 3. these differences from non-smokers were not statistically significant. RESULTS of body fat were calculated according to a modification of the equation of Durnin and Ramahan (1967)". Skinfold readings show that much of the extra weight of the male smokers was fat (A7.10/V. 13 F) did not record their age.10 > P > 0.** Male smokers were 4. these differences were not statistically significant.3 ± 2.

- 'Io-4 w 1- - - c6 n V- - c6 ICN N - 4 - c n I- 1o '- C L C") cli b #A O 1O .com on 30 March 2009 167 _N 41-1._ MC..00'C( _) +(NN = 0) IM _ CD T- C.%0) CDC o O LO lit :3 co a) D Cn o CN 00cN(0~~~C.j _r o o (N +I -00 + (1IO N ~ +l '1~ I'll +I +II +lC0 +lCr ' ov)1 +I Lo +lI 0 +lI 0:t 0 CEOC (.-A L CM 0. r.L N 4 vi ui0 Lo - L6 C O 6 o- E (N(N OU v_ C'.Downloaded from bjsm._ la ) 0 E C C Q 1 E )c cm . - (N M oN CD CV) (N 0 + cv) CY) CY) (N 1- V- LO 6 0 0 co 0 v CD 2 C Ln M +1 0) + (0 .bmj. 't-13 0 t~~ )r+I co ( LO CO +I C CY) (N 0 c( CO Z~~~~~+ ~~~CI ~ ui 10 -- a)~~~~~~~~D a) ~~~~~1- 6N Cv CN 6' XXr.D n _- _co T- CY) 0 o 0 _ - N co 00 DN O Cs C CI Ot 0.4M) 2 C CX @ E LL ~~~~~+1 ~ +1 r-:~~~~r'.0 E = N co 0 E LO (0 (0 g oo oa)o s) - ~ = 0)0 CN .-.2 o0 cmE 4 UL -0 Z) x ) cm CM . 0 E o -Z s Q A E~~~ E E c . o o0 00 -W (00 - CN N O o) (U +IS ° X to C1 o IT INo CS r- (U4-~ o- N L£i "T 6 N ui c6 CD 6 ° oi ° C. co S i N~ ZN= 0 4' 0 (Ur-. - - _ 0 m o a) ~+IC"M *~~.C9 0 (0 r(0 TCo '- 0) .c *-+ m~) (A( 2a)_ CE zo (Z cm '5 .

The former hypothesis seems the more likely. for the female non-smokers 37.2%) in the women. On the other hand.S. There were no significant differences of muscle strength between smokers and non-smokers./kg. min (5. (a) Body build.bmj./kg. and then differences observed in the smokers will be analysed. deficit in women) and that seen in many other countries. some of this variation may represent the influence of participation in various sports upon the strength of the back and leg muscles. In Sweden. a group of women attending a smoking withdrawal clinic (Rode.0% in the men. both male and female "white" South African students carry some excess weight. min. the excess weight relative to height seems intermediate between that noted for the U./kg. both male and female. min (8.. 1972) and Canadian samples.7 ml. One may thus surmise that the more fit members of each laboratory group elected to perform the maximal treadmill run. for the male smokers 51. 1968). the directly measured maximum oxygen intake exceeded the figure predicted by the Astrand nomogram. but the coloured students are lighter than actuarial predictions. 1966). min. although in terms of volume per cm of standing height.8 ml./kg. the Scandinavian results are 2-3% larger than the data from this laboratory. the class average V02 (max) for the male non-smokers would be 49. the male "coloured" students are 12 cm shorter than the "whites". direct treadmill maxima were generally higher than the indirect bicycle ergometer predictions for other students.9 cm). we suspect that much of it arises from difficulty in applying efficient counterpressure on the Clark tensiometer table.7% in the women). skinfold readings. The Canadian men are rather above the average height for 198 physical education students drawn from different parts of the world (advantage 2. and for the female smokers 42. The handgrip force was a reasonably precise measurement (coefficient of variation 13. 1962).6% and 7. the physical fitness of this group will be discussed first. The bicycle prediction was higher in 6 of the 7 students.S. while in South Africa the male physical education students were 0. but in the U. among the non-smokers.3% in the women. (where samples presumably include contact sportsmen) there is an excess weight of 12 kg.9 ml. There seem surprisingly large differences of body build between physical education students in different countries and different socio-economic groups (Table V) Thus. Physical Fitness of Students Since the majority of the group were non-smokers. The University students. and differences between directly measured and predicted V02 (max) readings suggest that both "plateau" and "non-plateau" subjects realised their maximum oxygen intake. 1970) were a little heavier and fatter than the female physical education students (expressed in kg/cm. 1968). There was no significant difference or aerobic power between the male smokers and non-smokers.0% in the men and 6. where aerobic training tends to be emphasized.1 ml.3 cm). On this basis. DISCUSSION 1. min.4%. and correcting the bicycle ergometer predictions for over-estimation. the discrepancy averaging 3. On the other hand. while the female "coloured" students are 7 cm shorter./kg. The male physical education students in Toronto were no leaner than reference populations of the same age. In the majority of subjects from both "plateau" and "non-plateau" groups. and 3. (b) Lung Volumes We have noted already that the lung volumes of physical education students exceed the age and height related norms for a sedentary reference population (Anderson et al.7 ml. Trunk flexion and knee extension force were much more variable. within South Africa. 1971) there was a suggestion that the female smokers had a greater aerobic power than their non-smoking counterparts. Swedish (Astrand et al. and the corresponding estimates of body fat were indeed slightly higher than in a group attending a Provincial Trade School.5%) in the men. the additional lean tissue amounted to 5. women physical education students were 5 cm shorter than those enrolled in other faculties (Bottin et al.2 cm taller than those from other disciplines (Sloan. were taller than reference populations of young normal subjects studied in Toronto over the past ten years.. (substantial excess in men. Belgium. but as in our previous studies (Shephard and Rode. but the women are a little below the average height (discrepancy 0. Comparison of the treadmill maxima with bicycle ergometer predictions were made on only 7 students (3 men and 4 women). The absolute vital capacity (Table VI) is very similar in the Danish (Asmussen and Mathiasen.2 cm shorter and the women 2.. When expressed per cm of standing height. while among the smokers the corresponding figures were 6. This could reflect the continued economic privilege of the general University population. the smoking withdrawal patients had 7% more body weight than female physical education students who were also smokers). in both sexes./kg.0 ml. since in . or the selection of physical education as a career by taller students. 15. but from our observation of the students. all physical education groups carried more lean mass than the Toronto reference populations. the men weigh less than predicted. on 30 March 2009 168 change ratios.Downloaded from bjsm.

43 (0.5-58.8 (6) (66.79) 200 ± 12 (39. (%) Predicted F.25 ± 0.0-93.9-88.5) 3.71 ± 0.49 (-0.0± 12.4) 5. 2 (max) Q.29 (4) 104.56-7.1) 4.Downloaded from bjsm.2 ± 13. range) Plateau Men No Plateau (n= 14) Women (n= 11) 2.D.4 (9) ( on 30 March 2009 169 Table II Lung volumes of students from physical education classes (mean ± S.0-44.6-52.V.5 ± 18.83 53.9-122.E.3 ± 8.3) A Astrand prediction fh (max) +0.0) Vital capacity predicted according to equations of Anderson et al.4-137.78-2.0 ± 12.5-87.6 ± 0.0 ± 14.67 ± 0.344 to +1.40) 112.E.5 (7) (93.81-7.74 (61) (3.2-88.6 ± 4..0) 85.9 (53) (88.3 (52) (79./kg.E.63 (57) One second forced expiratory volume (V.1 (6) (72.9-88.8) 82. (Mean ± S.76-4.01 ± 0.38 (7) Vital Capacity (Q BTPS) % Predicted Vital Capacity* 5.8 ± 5.1) 84.14 ± 0.80 ± 0.20) 103.02 ± 0.31 ± 4.07 (0.05) 199 ± 9 (183-215) 1.53 (2.3 (7) (67.74 (7) (3.14) .53 (67) (2.9 (4.03 to +1.8) +0.94 ± 0.6) 84.58) 201 ± 9 (30.96-5.5 (4) (78. (1968) Table Ill A comparison of maximum oxygen intake data between subjects reaching a formal plateau (augmentation of V 02 < 0.4) 4.5-129.37 ± 0.92-1.57 (-0./min STPD ml.07) Women (n=5) °.15 Q.2) /V.49 (2.0** F.6) (3.6 ± 0.97) (44.22 ± 0.1 0/V.9 (4) F.75) 39.95) 98.2 ± 1.33-5.3) +0.89-1.15) 201 ± 11 (190-218) 1.7) +0.6 ± 16.31 (-0.37-4.60) 93.66) 104.07 (0.30) 3.42) R (0.0 ± 1.40) 110.62 ± 0.bmj. min STPD 4.44-5.8) 87.6-104.1 ±4.85-5.46 ± 0. (1968).1.04 ± 0.0 * (69.7 ± 11.8 (1.V.9-114.1 ± 7.V1.4 (47) (70.8-96.D.70-5.44 ± 0.6 (54) (80.6-124.44 (3.1) 8. n.95-1.6-154.34 ± 0.6 2.50-66.0 ± 10.86 (10) (4.05 (180-227) 1.6 (55) (70.3-153.04-3.7 ± 5.0-86.83-1. ** Predicted according to equations of Anderson et al.04 ± 0.6) 87.47 (56) (2.Imin) and those failing to do so.09) 54.13) (190-220) 1.BTPS) % Predicted 3.20 to +1.18 to +0. (%) (87.6 (63) (84.44 ± 0.41 ± 0.2 (9) (83.36 Men (n= 15) 4.3 ± 4.40-3.7-91.03 ± 0.70) 111.9) 80. range) classified by sex and smoking habits Variable Non-smokers Male Female Smokers Male Female 4.0 (45) (2.7 (55) (83.62) 46.25 (0.2) (3.C.59 ± 0.

9 (9) (17-38) 59.1 ± 10.18 ± 0.80 ± 0.7 (75) (25-52) 29. n.72) ml.7) 3.94-1.8 (1) 2.3) Predicted V02 (max)* 2.62) 40.2 (61) (7-96) 57.83-1.31 (4) (3.bmj.46 ± 0.0-52./min (28-160) 201 ± 11 (25) (20-108) 199 ± 10 (16) (190-220) 1.39 (28) (1.7 (4) 2.2 ± 10.8 ± 17.89-1.2 (28) (29.18) 39.1 (21) 2.49 (17) (1.6 (8) (33-48) 24.11-5.09) 55. range) classified by sex.58-3.4-52.04 ± 0.0 ± 5.15 (16) (17-73) 1.35 (1) 61.07 ± 0.06 (4) 0.7 ± 5.0 ± 5.1 ± 6.45 (1) 44. min STPD 48.15 Q./min STPD 4.2 ± 11.6) 38.Downloaded from bjsm.2 (8) (52-70) 43. .5 ± 31.0) 58.2 ± 7.03 ± 0.51 (25) (2.48-4. dominant hand (kg) Trunk Flexion force (kg) 61.89 ± 0.9 ± 6.29-3.7 (7) Handgrip force.0 ± on 30 March 2009 170 'Table IV Aerobic power and muscle strength of physical education students (mean + S./kg.4 (73) 45.54 (3) (2.6 ± 33.65 ± 0.04 ± 0.64-3.07) 3 1 * Mainly different subjects from direct measurements.99 ± 10 (4) 202 (1) (180-220) 1.3 (73) (28-58) 79.42) 10 (0.3) 4.D.85-5.20) 50.9 (7) (22-103) 93.85 (29) (2.98 (1) (0.15) 11 (0.1 (6) Knee extension force (kg) Heart rate in maximal effort Respiratory gas exchange ratio in maximal effort Number reaching plateau of V02 < 0.9 (27) (29./min STPD (45.2 ± 4.3 (1) ml.1) 36.07 (25) (192-210) 1.7 (17) (30./kg.7 ± 15.5-66.2 (3) (41.0 ± 6.5 ± 6.27) 3. and smoking habits Variable Non Smokers Male Smokers Female Male Female Directly measured V02 (max) Q.5-52.3 (62) 2. min STPD (44.7 ± 5.8 (66) (38-74) 52.

3 182.2 +2.9 +12.8 +1.1 59.BTPS) (ml/cm BTPS) 5.22 (35) 25.65 (31) 32.4 ± 9. (1 968a) Heiters et al.0 ± 5.9± 10.0 ± 8.4 71.6 54.1 -0.9 173.1 165.6 Excess Weight (kg) Author Bottin et al.9 +3.8 24 23 17-26 17-26 17-26 17-26 18-25 18-25 Height (cm) Weight (kg) 56.0 ± 6.6 ± 5.9 +5.2 57.1 5.6 Sloan (1963) Table VI Lung volumes of Scandinavian and Canadian physical education students Variable Vital Capacity (ml/cm BTPS) Vital Capacity Men 32.45 +0.0 +2.0 61.6 166. (1966) Belgium Denmark 12F 17M 20F 25M 11F 38M 34F 38M 34F 15M 14F 16F 31M 35F 18M 91 F 27F 161. (Q.1 61.9 4.3 ± 6.9 +1.0 164.9 ± 4.1 70.4 -0.BTPS) (ml/cm BTPS) Vital Capacity (%) 5.08 (11) 24.62 (25) 32.0 80.0 57.5±8.7 20.8 Women Author 25.7 ± 11.1 (1972) Astrand et al.5 +5.5 79.30 Sloan (1963) Watson & JenningsWhite (1974) United States Weighted average 16M 15F M 198 F 223 86.0 62.0 164.0 178.5 ± 6.9 18-25 18-25 19.8 -0.6 +0.9 21.7 ± 9.6 ± 3.4 158.6 ± 0.6 74.0 ± 4.3 Present study .1 19.6 175.2 ± 5.4 -0.6 ± 1.2 Andersen (1959) Asmussen & Mathiasen (1962) Astrand et al.0 +2.5 58.8 62.0 75.2 ± 3.8 164.9 3.6 ± 6.4 ± 4.5 71.94 (67) 24.3 Asmussen & Mathiasen (1962) South Africa "Wh ite" "Coloured" "White" Sloan (1966) Sloan (1963) Wyndham (1972) Astrand et al.6 166.0 ± 4.3 -0. (1972) Vital Capacity (Q.8 166.7 59.8 69.0 ± 6.Downloaded from bjsm.5 on 30 March 2009 171 Table V Physical characteristics of Physical Education students in other countries Country N and Sex (yr) Age (yr) 20.55 (67) 31.3 60. (1972) Swed len Unite d Kingdom 25.7 18-25 18-25 176.4 175.0 ± 6.6 175.4 163.3 167.1 ± 6.0 73.0 -2.9 ± 1.7 -1.5 -0.bmj.0 4.BTPS) (ml/cm BTPS) (Q.1 165.1 +1.8 ± 1.1 174.8 ± 7.8 ± 5.

The Toronto sample was substantially less fit than Scandinavian students.either through selection or training .bmj. and part of the failure of the present group to meet "ideal" weights could be corrected by a reduction of stored fat. since the average heart rate in their experiments was only 180/min. 1972). although a number of the boys.4 ml. only foreign PE students available for comparison are those of Asmussen and Mathiasen (1962). perhaps the most alarming aspect of the present results is that neither the male nor the female students perceived a personal need for greater endurance activity. min in Sweden. 2. The . it is possible (i) that the more fit subjects of our population volunteered for maximum testing and (ii) that the Astrand nomogram over-estimated the aerobic power of those performing the sub-maximum test. Two groups of male medical students from Belgium and France respectively had aerobic powers that compared well with those of PE students. (1972). 1973b)./kg.3 kg (M) and 36. min. 1969). If the true maximum heart rate of the Belgians was as in the Scandinavian series./min. then the Belgian students were only tested to 89% of maximum oxygen intake.5 ml. whether data were expressed in absolute or in relative terms. reported values for male physical education students range from 39. although aerobic power is about the same for the two groups (both in absolute units and when expressed per kilogram of body weight).7 ml. The values for handgrip force among our male physical education students were some 8% higher than for the reference population in Toronto.3 ml. the values for our female students seemed no higher than our limited unpublished data for other young Toronto women. however. after correction for both of these possible sources of error. among the Among the women PE students aerobic power ranged from 37. The 9 female medical students examined by Wyndham (1972) were much less fit than South African PE students. (1966) reached a true maximum oxygen intake.. but perhaps give too much emphasis to the development of strength. and their true maximum would have been 43. this may merely represent a sampling of the fittest students. In the present series of data. in agreement with our previous observations on the general population (Shephard and Rode. the type of ergometer on 30 March 2009 172 (c) Aerobic power and muscle strength As noted in the results./kg. Their handgrip forces of 54. the average was only 10. From the viewpoint of their ultimate health-teaching mission. Should the physical education student be striving for a higher level of personal fitness? The fact that neither the estimated percentage of body fat nor the aerobic power differ greatly from figures found in the average working class young Torontonian suggests that the physical education students should be undertaking more endurance-type activity. but in absolute terms their maximum oxygen intake was no greater than that observed for those of the Toronto group who elected to perform a maximal test. the female smoker tends to be more fit than her non-smoking partner.6% in 35 male students and 20./kg. The Danish male PE students had an aerobic power very comparable with that found in Toronto. However. The boys mainly work quite hard in the gymnasium. min STPD.have a somewhat greater lean mass than their European counterparts. Among the girls. but also reflected emphasis on endurance training and diminution of body fat. 1971. the degree of training of the subjects and selection factors. distance competitors in the men's swimming team have shown an average maximum oxygen intake of 4. in view of the vast medical classes at the universities in question. However. In view of large constitutional differences in potential aerobic power.3% in 35 females. it thus seems likely that their better showing was not due simply to a selection of fitter subjects for maximum testing./kg. min in South Africa (where results may have been biassed downwards by the test altitude) to 47.0 . The Swedish PE students were substantially fitter on a per kilo basis. Data from other countries is summarized in Table VII.7 kg (F) seem in keeping with our previous suggestion that male PE students in North American . In contrast. Rode. It seems doubtful if the subjects of Heiters et al. reluctance to undertake endurance work seemed related to fears of becoming too muscular "when I started jogging. min STPD (Shephard et al. Von Dobeln (1956) measured the body fat of the Swedish group.89 I. we do know that a number of University athletic teams that have undergone vigorous endurance training have realised a substantially higher aerobic power.58. depending on the criteria of maximum effort. however. it is difficult to state categorically how much improvement of maximum oxygen intake might be attained by a more vigorous training programme. the male cigarette smoker is in some respects less fit than his non-smoking counterpart. this trend is reflected in a substantially higher percentage of body fat. 65. compared with 194-196/min in the series of Astrand et al. Ross and Shephard. my boy friend complained my calves were becoming too large" was a typical comment.commented that the girls' programme was inadequate in this respect.Downloaded from bjsm. thus. The effects of cigarette smoking It is somewhat difficult to separate constitutional factors from responses to the cigarette habit. the aerobic power of the physical education students was very comparable with published data for the Toronto population of the same age (Shephard./kg. Well-trained male athletes can with advantage reduce their fat stores below 10% of body weight.6 ml.

1 South Africa France Wyndham (1972) Flandrois & LaCour (1966) M M 17-23 73M 3. . E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work of this laboratory is supported in part by a research grant from the Department of National Health and Welfare (606-1100-27).20 1.1 56.4%.07 46.Downloaded from bjsm.1 20.1.7 21.28 3. we may assume the loss of F. Since the smokers are neither weaker nor smaller than non-smokers./kg. (1966) Bottin et al.bmj. In terms of effectiveness in health education. M = Medicine) Country Faculty Age (yr) 24 23 Sex n Aerobic power Q. = Physical Education.71 2. but it would appear that in Canadian physical education students also the true maximum is on 30 March 2009 173 Table VII Aerobic power of student populations in other countries (P./min STPD ml.83 2. This reflects the absence of anxiety among the physical education students.E. they enjoyed their laboratory classes in a good humored if not boisterous manner.5 31.9 20.0 is a reflection of the cigarette habit rather than associated constitutional factors. a first submaximal test over-estimates the true maximum by 8. 3. present series of PE students there is no advantage in terms of body fat. (1968a) Sweden Belgium 25.9 21. and that in the majority of these 17 Previous comparisons between bicycle ergometer predictions and directly measured treadmill maxima (Shephard et al.min STPD 3. It is striking that a change of this magnitude can be demonstrated after only a few years of what might be regarded as relatively mild cigarette usage.79 4. The present sample is rather small for generalization.6 higher in the smokers.7 Asmussen & Mathiasen (1962) (1962) Astrand et al.0 41. by an average of 5-6% in the men and 8-9% in the women.73 Author Denmark PE PE PE PE M PE 25M 11F 31M 35F 17M 12F 37M 16F 9F 51.. it is encouraging to find that only 17 of the 161 students were smoking.61 2.08 2. 1968) have suggested that in young and moderately active Canadians.6 39. but the aerobic power is substantially cigarette consumption was lower than in the general population of the same age.4 58. Astrand nomogram An apparent deterioration of one second forced expiratory volume is shown rather equally in male and female smokers.83 2. (1972) Heiters et al. for the most part.6 45. (1968b) Bottin et al.7 47.7 37.

1-19. R. University of Toronto. (1966). Juchmes. Sloan. Reinforcement of a smoking withdrawal program: the role of the physiologist and the psychologist. (1971).AppI. A.Physiol. T.Publ. R. 23-30.. R. and Mathiasen. Ergonomics 17. M. A. M. 10.Quart. 244-248.Physiol. on 30 March 2009 174 REFERENCES Anderson. and Pirnay. J. Degre. A. . (1973). R. J. and Ramahan. Astrand.Afr. Canad. Wyndham. and Lourie. IntZ. 379-387. Ill. R. Shephard. J. (1966). United States of America. Respiration 25. and England.. F.Z angew. (1973b). J. C. Shephard. (1962). Comparison of tests of physical fitness of student teachers at Cape Town. J. A.. I. W.Phys. Pirnay.Downloaded from bjsm. Human Biology.J. (1967). 140158. Thomas. J. M. Bottin. Margaret (1974). (1974). Asmussen. Hall. G. R.J.649-654. Rev. J. and Massey. (1968a).. and Messin. Res. M. IntZ. Bottin. S. W.angew. V. and Petit.Med. W. Watson. M. IntZangew. School of Hygiene.. J. J. J. A. O. 104. 25-31. Oxford: Blackwell. 335-340. (1963). 32. Aptitude physique d'etudiants universitaires. 1. Etude de quelques parameters cardio-vasculaires et respiratoires chez less 6tudiants en education physique. Deroanne.. and Campbell. J. Rev. Thesis.bmj. Sloan. The limitations of linear regressions for the prediction of vital capacity and forced expiratory volume.. medium and long-distance swimmers. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Health 64. (1968). E. G.. 69-79. Physical fitness of college students in South Africa. 46. Deroanne. (1970). Springfield. C. Brown. Weiner. Shephard. Durnin.Dis.Soc. Coenraets. J. S. Rode. R. 35. (1969). J. Smoking withdrawal and changes of cardio-respiratory fitness. Int. R. Amer.. Some physiologic functions in physical education students reinvestigated after twenty-five years.. Godin. and Ross. 23. Shephard.. Dixon. R. Etude comparative de la consommation maximum d'02 chez des 6tudiantes pratiquant ou non l'education physique. Characteristics of sprint. J. J.Nutr. Geriatr. 24-33. Energy intake and expenditure with reference to the female physical education student. and Jennings-White. 26. (1968b). F. Petit.Physiol. Hallback. 34. 1655-1661. and Shephard. Acute and chronic effects of smoking on fitness.Amer. 25. (1972). 933-935. Astrand. F. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. A guide to field methods. Brit. and Rode A. Juchmes. W. C. R. S. W. Men at work: applications of ergonomics to performance and design..angew. J.J.Physiol. S. R. A. The capacity for endurance exercise of third-year medical students. J. 541-551.. 6. H.. 1973. P.Sc. (1969).: C. 681-689. The assessment of the amount of fat in the human body from measurements of skinfold thickness.Physiol. (1973a}. 21. R. Rode. R. J. Heiters. R. Reduction in maximal oxygen uptake with age. Resp. A. and Kilbom.Educ.