Prediction of maximum oxygen consumption from walking, jogging, or running

The purpose of this study was to develop a submaximal, 1.5-mile endurance test for college-aged students using walking, jogging, or running exercise. College students (N = 101: 52 men, 47 women), ages 18-26years, successfully completed the 1.5-mile test twice, and a maximal graded exercise test. Participants were instructed to achieve a "somewhat hard" exercise intensity (rating of perceived exertion = 13) and maintain a steady pace throughout each 1.5-mile test. Multiple linear regression generated the following prediction equation: VO2 max = 65.404 + 7.707 x gender (1 = male; 0 =female) - 0.159 x body mass (kg) - 0.843 x elapsed exercise time (min; walking, jogging orrunning). This equation shows acceptable validity (R = .86, SEE = 3.37 ml x kg(-1) min(-1)) similar to the accuracy of comparable field tests, and reliability (ICC = .93) is also comparable to similar models. The statistical shrinkage is minimal (R(press) = 0.85, SEE(press) = 3.51 ml x kg(-) x min(-1)); hence, it should provide comparable results when applied to other similar samples. A regression model (R =.90, and SEE = 2.87 ml x kg(-1) min(-1)) including exercise heart rate was also developed: VO2 max = 100.162 +/- 7.301 x gender(1 = male; 0 =female) - 0.164 x body mass (kg) - 1.273 x elapsed exercise time -0.156 x exercise heart rate, for those who have access to electronic heart rate monitors. This submaximal 1.5-mile test accurately predicts maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) without measuring heart rate and is similar to the 1.5-mile run in that it allowsfor mass testing and requires only a flat, measured distance and a stopwatch. Further, it can accommodate a wide range of fitness levels (from walkers to runners).     

Elemental Forms

This paper considers the way the nineteenth-century newspaper was oriented towards information. Despite their political differences, nineteenth-century newspapers were often discussed as if they were universal, with a paper for every segment of society. My argument is that this apparent universality, where the newspaper was figured as a print genre potentially open to all, laid the foundations for the emergence of the popular press. The paper is in two parts. The first considers the nineteenth-century newspaper as a genre, arguing that its periodicity enabled it to serve as a perfect medium, passing on content derived from elsewhere. The second explores the way information was conceived in the period. By looking at the way the newspaper drew upon, represented, and distributed information, it is possible to understand how it functioned as material media. In conclusion, I look at the way the nineteenth-century newspaper is changed through digitization today. When scholars access nineteenth-century newspapers through digital resources, they engage with a different material media that, in turn, reconfigures the source material. Such encounters foreground the importance of genre while providing new opportunities for its study.     

Who are We?

This article scrutinises the usage of the words “we”, “us” and “our” by BBC radio journalists when reporting and discussing news and current affairs. By analysing reports and discussions on the “flagship” Radio 4 Today, a daily news programme whose centrality to political and public debate is widely recognised, the article raises substantive questions about clarity, accuracy and impartiality in senior broadcast journalists’ choice of language. In exploring the assumptions which may underlie the invocation, via such language choices, of an implied community, and against the backdrop of the BBC's commitment to impartiality in its Editorial Guidelines, the article identifies numerous recent examples where the choice of words and identifiers can be seen as undermining the BBC's impartiality and which show several of its senior journalists adopting the first-person plural “we” when reporting on matters of public policy. The findings therefore indicate a general need to codify norms which are seen to integrate the need for accuracy as well as impartiality, and for these norms to take into account issues which might at first glance seem to be inconsequential, micro-level features of the journalists’ language. The evidence suggests that more fine-grained guidelines on permissible circumstances for BBC journalists’ usage of “we” and “our” need revising and disseminating in the light of these findings.