Fitzgerald · Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) 1997 · meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies · n=4,884

Age-related declines in maximal aerobic capacity in regularly exercising vs. sedentary women: a meta-analysis.

Cited 309 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Meta-analysis of cross-sectional observational studies

PubMed 9216959 · doi:10.1152/jappl.1997.83.1.160 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between habitual aerobic exercise status and the rate of decline in maximal aerobic capacity (VO2 max) across women aged 18–89 years. Group-level data were extracted from 109 published studies encompassing 239 subject groups and 4,884 women, categorised into sedentary (107 groups; n = 2,256), active (69 groups; n = 1,717), and endurance-trained (63 groups; n = 911) cohorts. Cross-sectional rates of decline in VO2 max and maximal heart rate across age were compared across groups.

What was found

Mean VO2 max was 29.7 +/- 7.8 ml/kg/min in sedentary, 38.7 +/- 9.2 ml/kg/min in active, and 52.0 +/- 10.5 ml/kg/min in endurance-trained women, with VO2 max inversely related to age in each group (r = -0.82 to -0.87, all P < 0.0001). The absolute rate of VO2 max decline with age was lowest in sedentary women (-3.5 ml/kg/min/decade), intermediate in active women (-4.4 ml/kg/min/decade), and highest in endurance-trained women (-6.2 ml/kg/min/decade) (all P < 0.001 vs. each other). When calculated as a percentage decrease from values at age ~25 years, relative decline rates were similar across all three groups (-10.0% to -10.9%/decade). Exercise status showed no relationship with the rate of maximal heart rate decline with age.

Why it matters

These findings challenge the concept that regular endurance exercise mitigates the absolute rate of age-related cardiorespiratory capacity decline in women. Although endurance-trained women maintain higher absolute fitness across the lifespan, their absolute rate of VO2 max loss is greater, while proportional loss per decade is uniform regardless of exercise status.

Limits

The analysis relied entirely on cross-sectional aggregate group data from published literature rather than longitudinal tracking of individuals. Physical activity categorization was arbitrary based on published cohort descriptions, and confounding factors such as longitudinal changes in training volume or intensity could not be directly controlled.

Cited by