Studies on feasibility and safety of health-related field-based physical fitness tests in adults are limited, with a lack of methodological homogeneity in the definition of their items. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility and safety of the most frequently used health-related field-based physical fitness tests in adult population.

A total of 390 participants, homogeneously distributed by sex, age and physical activity level, were included in the study. Feasibility and safety items proposed from the scientific evidence were assessed for the most frequently used health-related field-based physical fitness tests in adult population. Overall, feasibility items presented a successful answer of 100% in all tests; “participants evaluated” were the 100% of the sample, with an adequate “ratio participants/evaluators” and “time of preparation” (i.e., ∼1 minute). Safety items presented a successful answer of 99% in all tests, “heart rate” (HR) was evaluated only in cardiorespiratory fitness tests; the 97% of the participants reached the “85% HRmax” in the 20-m shuttle run test. For “rate of perceived exertion”, the 51% and 88% of the participants reported a moderate and hard to maximum effort in the 30-s sit-to-stand and the front plank tests, respectively. For “tibial pain” the 32% of the participants reported pain in the 2-km walk test, and for “delayed-onset muscle soreness” the 45% of the participants expressed some degree of muscle soreness, with the 95% of them reporting that cardiorespiratory fitness tests could be the cause.

The most frequently used health-related field-based physical fitness tests are feasible and safe in adult population homogeneously distributed by sex, age and physical activity level.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness in the 2017 call for R&D Projects of the State Program for Research, Development and Innovation Targeting the Challenges of the Company; National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013–2016 (DEP2017–88043–R). National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2017–2020 (PN/EPIF–FPU–CTFPU20/02938), and the Regional Government of Andalusia and University of Cadiz: Research and Knowledge Transfer Fund (PPIT–FPI19–GJ4F–10).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research of Cadiz, Spain.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are included in the article and/or its supplementary information files.