Question:
I am required to take an exercise stress test for a job to see if my
asthma is induced. I must run at 12.5 METS and not induce an attack to
pass the test. In my lay opinion, setting 12.5 METS assumes that
someone is in good enough cardiovascular shape to run for an extended
period of time at 12.5 METS. From what I've read, these tests are
typically given with a target level of exertion of 75-80% of the
person's maximum predicted heart rate. I am in good enough
cardiovascular shape to run at 11.5 METS for more than a half-hour.
But 12.5 METS causes my muscles to fatigue within several minutes,
which I was told by my physician could be due to something called
reaching the lactate acid limit. Would it to be correct to say that
using 75-80% of my max predicted heart rate would be more suitable for
the test because it would allow me to complete the test? Any thoughts?
Answer:
The test as set forth by your employer is biased against those who are
older and/or deconditioned.
Is the test related to a job description that requires a high level of
fitness and availability for duty, for example fire fighting? If so,
ISTM the requirement could be justified since an asthma attack might
jeopardize the welfare or safety of the public or of your fellow
workers, not to mention your own safety.
OTOH, if the test is more intended to reduce generalized risk (which
might impact employer health insurance costs, for instance) it would
seem to be harder for them to justify and you may be able to negotiate a
compromise, particularly if you can document that the tests are
typically given at a lower target level than your [potential?] employer
is using.
