Talk:Multi-stage fitness test

'Velocity' or 'Speed'
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)

Confusion over the official timings
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)

However, as far as VO2 max goes there is no difference in results between the two tests so either can be used.

Luc Leger also said he updated Wikipedia himself a few times with bits of information and within days someone had changed it back!

The table of timings below shows the timings used by the NCF and the timings stated in the Eurofit Provisional Handbook (Strasbourg 1983).
More to come...

Jb1098 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Total level time for level 6 is wrong. It should be 65.45 seconds. 11km/h = 3.05555m/s

10 shuttles of 20m at 3.06m/s = 10 x 20 / 3.055555 = 65.454545 seconds.

The result 65.50 is the result of either typing or rounding error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.214.133 (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.41.160 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a comment. Please bear with me if I'm not doing this correctly. I'm new to Wikipedia. My comment is as follows:-

The table of distances in the Calculations section can't be right. Each level consists of a whole number of 20m shuttles, so it's not pdfgdfgffddfge for level 1 to be 142m, level 2 to be 150m, etc. In fact, I think that level 1 consists of 7 x 20m shuttles and takes just under 60 seconds, level 2 consists of 8 x 20m shuttles and takes 64 seconds, etc.

Note that this is supported by the table further down this discussion page. At the Level 1 speed participants would complete 7.083 shuttles in 60 seconds and at the Level 2 speed participants would complete 7.5 shuttles in 60 seconds. However, a level can't include a fraction of a shuttle.

Now, what's the best way of getting this information incorporated into the main page?

--AOMackenzie 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that someone spammed your message. You'll have to rewrite what you ment, I have no clue what you are asking here. Sorry!01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Johanna451940  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk)

To answer your question, each stage is only approximately 60 seconds but is exactly a set number of laps. This is to avoid a speed increase mid lap/shuttle. Look closely at the table on the main page.

As to the discussion on high scores, you need to take into account the effort/energy in making each turn. There is no justification to compare the beep test with straight 400m/5000m running by calculating average speeds over the entire fitness test - it's stop, start every 20m! Ian Bickerton (Bitworks - Sports Software)

What's the highest level obtained on the test? Has anyone made level 23? &mdash; Matt Crypto 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Names of those who have high scores on the test
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)
 * 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)

The BBC site linked at the bottom of this page quotes Rio Ferdinand as claiming Beckham can complete it. Moenaro427
 * 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)

About the speed of a 400m runner: The world record is 400m in 43.18 s by Michael Johnson. That's 9.26 m/s or 33.35 km/h. According to the tablet, the Multi Stage Fitness Test does not even come close to that! About top soccer players: I myself have just recently completed 14-1, a fellow of mine even 14-13. Both of us are only low regional Badminton Players. A professional should be able to do MUCH better than that! Gan Fort (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the same rumours here in Sweden about the former international football player Håkan Mild. He comments the rumours on this site: http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.976787/las-chatten-med-arets-goteborgare-hakan-mild.

Translated by me:

"Matte: I've heard a rumour that you've completed the whole Beep-test. Is that true? Håkan Mild: No, I haven't completed it, but I've come quite close for fiftheen years ago. I ran until I hit 19.20."

The thing is that there is no 19.20... but that says something whats a good score and what should be attainable for international top midfielders.--84.217.122.124 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Responding to Abberley: Though I'm not a "top 5000m runner" I can easily do 5k straight in less than 22 mins (best is 15 mins), but that did not prepare me for the beep test (best is 9.7). Using average speeds is completely misleading. Distance runners, I think, will generally do poorly - the footballers (all codes) probably the best. I'd be surprised if even Haile Gebrasellasie (?) gets close to the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.26.84 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Defence Force
The Australian Defence Force uses a modified version of the beep test. The minimum level of requirement is level 7.5, but this accounts to 56 shuttles, or a total of 1120 meters in 6 minutes and 30 seconds. If somebody wants to fix the article, then go for it. Here's the link:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/techniques/ The Bryce (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it actually is a 'modified' version, they're just running to a certain level then stopping. Writing it out may help clarify it. Starting from Level 6, Shuttle 10 (1020m) + 1 shuttle to 7.1 = 1040m + 1 (7.2) = 1060m + 1 (7.3) = 1080m + 1 (7.4) = 1100m + 1 (7.5) = 1120m. Each shuttle isn't deemed complete until you reach the far line, stop and turn around so merely running on 7.5 and collapsing mid way won't allow you to get 7.5, therefore X person scored what X person successfully completed previously, in this case: 7.4. Does that clarify it?


 * DeltaFalcon talk / contribs 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Info on VO2 Max estimation needed
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)

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

Interval increasing or decreasing
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)

Table of numbers
“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)


 * I couldn't agree more, people that never did a beep test are harming the entry. Rodersb (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rodersb, that "people that never did a beep test thing" argument is kind of dumb. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:UNCHALLENGED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (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))