Do Firefighter Health Profiles Differ Based On The Occupational Cardiorespiratory Fitness Standard

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of premature mortality in firefighters. Previous work suggests that the relationship between CVD risk and oxidative stress (OS), inflammation, poor fitness, and body composition is elevated in firefighters. Variables including body fat distribution and blood glucose and lipid profiles can be impacted by a poor fitness level. This study provides insight into the potential health benefits of maintaining occupational CRF standards in relation to variables that increase CVD risk. PURPOSE: This study investigated whether FF health profiles differ based on occupational CRF standards. METHODS: 144 FF completed an annual clinical health assessment, wherein the occupational V̇O2max standard of 42 ml/kg/min was used to establish a low fitness group (LF = 92 FF) and a high fitness group (HF = 52 FF). Shapiro-Wilk Test was used to assess normality. Independent sample T-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests (if normality was violated) assessed differences in CVD risk biomarkers and fitness and body composition metrics between LF and HF. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. RESULTS: Compared to the LF, the HF exhibited a lower waist-to-hip ratio (p < 0.001, d = 0.227), body fat percentage (p < 0.001, d = 0.1.346), fat mass (p < 0.001, d = 0.1.183), android fat distribution (p < 0.001, d = 1.405), visceral adipose tissue (p < 0.001, d = 0.829), total cholesterol (p < 0.001, d = 0.615), low-density lipoprotein concentrations (p < 0.001, d = 0.662), Apolipoprotein B levels (p < 0.001, d = 0.713), fasting insulin (p < 0.001, d = 0.500), and Framingham heart (p < 0.001, d = 0.581) and 10-year CVD risk (p < 0.001, d = 0.469) scores. In addition, the HF performed more sit-ups (p < 0.001, d = 0.789) and push-ups (p < 0.001, d = 1.1210) and had higher lean mass values (p = 0.012, d = 0.428) than the LF group. CONCLUSION: These data provide evidence that FF who meet the occupational fitness standards have better health profiles and lower CVD risk than their less fit counterparts. Longer duration assessments are warranted to understand better CRF's impact on CVD risk over time among FF.