Talk:Multi-stage fitness test

message: Just a quick note, think that saying that an increased velocity is requried is technically wrong. Velocity is a vector quanty and therefore is opposite for the 'there' and 'back' of each shuttle. The magnitude of the velocity is what is increasing, and this is speed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.56 (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Velocity' or 'Speed'

message: A contact of mine has been talking to Luc Leger, the inventor of the original 20 metre multi-stage fitness test. He says the timings used by the National Coaching Foundation UK (NCF) are not the original timings that were used by Luc in his original test. He explained that his original version started at 8.5 km/hr and increased by 0.5 km/hr for each level thereafter. 
To confuse matters further, I also have a copy of the table from the eurofit provisional handbook that references Leger's 1982 paper (which I also hold a copy of). The timings in the handbook are the same as the NCF timings.
Ian Bickerton (Bitworks, Sports Software), I too have all the original papers including the 1982 Eurofit Appendix, this provides the timings for the Beep Test. I agree with Luc Leger the NCF is wrong on a number of the timings, however this only affects the first stage run speed 8.5km/h or 8km/h, the second stage is 9km/h and then increases 0.5km/h for every stage. Since the first few stages of the beep test are really a warm up this small difference in the stage one run speed does not affect the test result. More of a problem is that content keeps being deleting and hacked, this is expert content from people like Luc Leger trying to correct this article!!      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.41.160 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By my calculations, to reach level 23 you would need to sustain an average speed of 5.28 m/s (crossing 20m in 3.789 seconds) over 300 meters (15 x 20, stop-starts not included). Not to mention the last twenty-odd minutes of exertion. Quite impressive. If I could find a precise definition of the test, that would be even better. Tzarius 05:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over the official timings

message: Level	Shuttles	Speed (km/h)	Seconds per shuttle	Total level time (s)	Distance (m)	Cumulative Distance (m)	Cumulative Time (min and seconds)
1    	7       	8.0         	9.0                	63.00               	140         	140                    	1:03
2    	8       	9.0         	8.00               	64.00               	160         	300                    	2:07
3    	8       	9.5         	7.58               	60.63               	160         	460                    	3:08
4    	9       	10.0        	7.20               	64.80               	180         	640                    	4:12
5    	9       	10.5        	6.86               	61.71               	180         	820                    	5:14
6    	10      	11.0        	6.55               	65.50               	200         	1020                   	6:20
7    	10      	11.5        	6.26               	62.61               	200         	1220                   	7:22
8    	11      	12.0        	6.00               	66.00               	220         	1440                   	8:28
9    	11      	12.5        	5.76               	63.36               	220         	1660                   	9:31
10   	11      	13.0        	5.54               	60.92               	220         	1880                   	10:32
11   	12      	13.5        	5.33               	64.00               	240         	2120                   	11:36
12   	12      	14.0        	5.14               	61.71               	240         	2360                   	12:38
13   	13      	14.5        	4.97               	64.55               	260         	2620                   	13:43
14   	13      	15.0        	4.80               	62.40               	260         	2880                   	14:45
15   	13      	15.5        	4.65               	60.39               	260         	3140                   	15:46
16   	14      	16.0        	4.50               	63.00               	280         	3420                   	16:49
17   	14      	16.5        	4.36               	61.09               	280         	3700                   	17:50
18   	15      	17.0        	4.24               	63.53               	300         	4000                   	18:54
19   	15      	17.5        	4.11               	61.71               	300         	4300                   	19:56
20   	16      	18.0        	4.00               	64.00               	320         	4620                   	21:00
21   	16      	18.5        	3.89               	62.27               	320         	4940                   	22:03
More to come...
Jb1098 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By my calculations, to reach level 23 you would need to sustain an average speed of 5.28 m/s (crossing 20m in 3.789 seconds) over 300 meters (15 x 20, stop-starts not included). Not to mention the last twenty-odd minutes of exertion. Quite impressive. If I could find a precise definition of the test, that would be even better. Tzarius 05:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The table of timings below shows the timings used by the NCF and the timings stated in the Eurofit Provisional Handbook (Strasbourg 1983).

message: As for the comment about Armstrong, Beckham, et. al., reaching a 23 level, that is sheer folklore and not substantiated anywhere. Get rid of that statement, please. Goodness, the top soccer players in the world typically reach only level 16 or so. For those who care, to reach a level of 16 requires each 20m leg to be run approximately at a sprint speed of a 400m runner! Unless your name is Paul Roberts, who is the only known human to have completed the test, in his days at Nelson Football Club. Paul recently achieved legend status for this accomplishment. 
Finally, who in blazes is Danielle C.? I never heard of her.
Toketeeman 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless proper citations can be found, I don't believe any of the names should be placed in the main article. I've removed them until the references can be found. Nposs 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a little skeptical of that BBC claim, maybe they confused the beep test with something else (ie. club specific test) or simply they counted wrong (beep test scores are often misquoted). I don't think Ferdinand and Beckham are the fittest players nor athletes around. Anyways, here's some stats from the 2006 AFL Draft and potential future star players - . Compare the 3km(~2mile) time trial with the beep test. Midfielders require exceptional stamina levels. - Htra0497 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Running the whole test amounts to 4,780 metres in 22:06. The world record for 5,000 metres is 12:37.35. Obviously the structure of the run is very different, but I would be surprised if a top 5,000 metre runner couldn't reach the end. That makes me wonder about the suitability of this test for selecting military officers, as world class 5,000 metre runners are skinny little chaps, which is surely not the best possible build for a soldier. Abberley2 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of those who have high scores on the test=

message: I think the table should give some details of how VO2max is estimated from the level attained --Ozhiker (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on VO2 Max estimation needed 

message: At a glance, sources appear to use "beep". --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Beep vs bleep

message: In the Rules section, the article states "As the test proceeds, the interval between each successive beep increases, forcing the athlete to increase their speed over the course of the test", surely the interval between each successive beep decreases? 106.69.7.77 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interval increasing or decreasing 

message: “The grid” removed the table of numbers (i.e., levels, lengths, speeds, durations, & distances, etc.), stating it was beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I cry foul!
Please put it back, unless it is very inaccurate. Somebody researched this information, and entered it. It seemed like good information. I for one, have referred to it during my training. Please restore the table. Lyndon Gordon (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more, people that never did a beep test are harming the entry. Rodersb (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodersb, that "people that never did a beep test thing" argument is kind of dumb. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument already took place in 2020 with the outcome being that the content was back, I am sorry but despite not being a usual Wikipedia editor I will have to stand my ground regarding that entry, because me and people like me are the ones using its content in a day to day basis. Rodersb (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One person making one comment does not bind our hands forever. This list isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia and simply doesn't belong on the page. Many people use telephone directories on a daily basis, but you'll note that Wikipedia doesn't contain lists of phone numbers - because it is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of information. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The content will be back eventually, because people that use that entry and are preparing for a beep test come looking for it. I will concede that the 15 metre might have been excessive, but I consider the 20 meter absolutely necessary, and if you check the historic of the entry it's been there most of the time. Rodersb (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNCHALLENGED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

text: (Note: this subsection is under "Relevance and significance fallacies", which wasn't evident to me until I scrolled up the page.   signed, Willondon (talk)  14:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of numbers