Limits...
Rating of perceived exertion as a tool for prescribing and self regulating interval training: a pilot study.

Ciolac EG, Mantuani SS, Neiva CM, Verardi C, Pessôa-Filho DM, Pimenta L - Biol Sport (2015)

Bottom Line: The aim of the present study was to analyse the usefulness of the 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training (HIT) in young individuals.No significant difference between sessions was observed in HR during low- (HR: 135±15 bpm; RPE: 138±20 bpm) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 168±15 bpm; RPE: 170±18 bpm).This finding suggests that the 6-20 RPE scale may be a useful tool for prescribing and self-regulating HIT in young subjects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: São Paulo State University - UNESP, School of Sciences, Physical Education Department, Exercise and Chronic Disease Research Laboratory, Bauru, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to analyse the usefulness of the 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training (HIT) in young individuals. Eight healthy young subjects (age = 27.5±6.7 years) performed maximal graded exercise testing to determine their maximal and reserve heart rate (HR). Subjects then performed two HIT sessions (20 min on a treadmill) prescribed and regulated by their HR (HR: 1 min at 50% alternated with 1 min at 85% of reserve HR) or RPE (RPE: 1 minute at the 9-11 level [very light-fairly light] alternated with 1 minute at the 15-17 level [hard-very hard]) in random order. HR response and walking/running speed during the 20 min of exercise were compared between sessions. No significant difference between sessions was observed in HR during low- (HR: 135±15 bpm; RPE: 138±20 bpm) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 168±15 bpm; RPE: 170±18 bpm). Walking/running speed during low- (HR: 5.7±1.2 km · h(-1); RPE: 5.7±1.3 km · h(-1)) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 7.8±1.9 km · h(-1); RPE: 8.2±1.7 km · h(-1)) was also not different between sessions. No significant differences were observed in HR response and walking/running speed between HIT sessions prescribed and regulated by HR or RPE. This finding suggests that the 6-20 RPE scale may be a useful tool for prescribing and self-regulating HIT in young subjects.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Study design.Note: HR: heart rate. RPE: rating of perceived exertion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4296211&req=5

Figure 0001: Study design.Note: HR: heart rate. RPE: rating of perceived exertion.

Mentions: We studied 8 healthy young college subjects (5 women). A structured history, medical record review and physical evaluation were performed before study participation to document symptoms, history of chronic diseases, current medication, cardiac risk factors, and cardiac events and procedures. Subjects with musculoskeletal limitations to physical exercise, uncontrolled cardiovascular or metabolic disease, insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic psychological disorders, cardiac disease or taking any drug that could potentially influence cardiovascular response to exercise were excluded from the study. All volunteers were physically inactive (no involvement in regular physical activity or exercise programme during the previous 6 months) and had blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg (measures on two different occasions in triplicate at 2-minute intervals). Participants were then referred for maximal graded exercise testing (GXT) to determine HR dynamics. After GXT, volunteers were randomized one by one to a HIT session prescribed and regulated by HRRESERVE or RPE response. All volunteers performed the two HIT sessions between 3 and 7 days after the randomization, and there was an interval of at least 2 days between HIT sessions (Figure 1). HR and exercise intensity (walking/running speed) were collected throughout the 20 min of exercise and were compared between sessions. This study was approved by the ethics committee board at our institution. All volunteers read a detailed description of the protocol and provided their written informed consent. The characteristics of the subjects included in the study are summarized in Table 1.


Rating of perceived exertion as a tool for prescribing and self regulating interval training: a pilot study.

Ciolac EG, Mantuani SS, Neiva CM, Verardi C, Pessôa-Filho DM, Pimenta L - Biol Sport (2015)

Study design.Note: HR: heart rate. RPE: rating of perceived exertion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4296211&req=5

Figure 0001: Study design.Note: HR: heart rate. RPE: rating of perceived exertion.
Mentions: We studied 8 healthy young college subjects (5 women). A structured history, medical record review and physical evaluation were performed before study participation to document symptoms, history of chronic diseases, current medication, cardiac risk factors, and cardiac events and procedures. Subjects with musculoskeletal limitations to physical exercise, uncontrolled cardiovascular or metabolic disease, insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic psychological disorders, cardiac disease or taking any drug that could potentially influence cardiovascular response to exercise were excluded from the study. All volunteers were physically inactive (no involvement in regular physical activity or exercise programme during the previous 6 months) and had blood pressure below 130/80 mmHg (measures on two different occasions in triplicate at 2-minute intervals). Participants were then referred for maximal graded exercise testing (GXT) to determine HR dynamics. After GXT, volunteers were randomized one by one to a HIT session prescribed and regulated by HRRESERVE or RPE response. All volunteers performed the two HIT sessions between 3 and 7 days after the randomization, and there was an interval of at least 2 days between HIT sessions (Figure 1). HR and exercise intensity (walking/running speed) were collected throughout the 20 min of exercise and were compared between sessions. This study was approved by the ethics committee board at our institution. All volunteers read a detailed description of the protocol and provided their written informed consent. The characteristics of the subjects included in the study are summarized in Table 1.

Bottom Line: The aim of the present study was to analyse the usefulness of the 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training (HIT) in young individuals.No significant difference between sessions was observed in HR during low- (HR: 135±15 bpm; RPE: 138±20 bpm) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 168±15 bpm; RPE: 170±18 bpm).This finding suggests that the 6-20 RPE scale may be a useful tool for prescribing and self-regulating HIT in young subjects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: São Paulo State University - UNESP, School of Sciences, Physical Education Department, Exercise and Chronic Disease Research Laboratory, Bauru, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to analyse the usefulness of the 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training (HIT) in young individuals. Eight healthy young subjects (age = 27.5±6.7 years) performed maximal graded exercise testing to determine their maximal and reserve heart rate (HR). Subjects then performed two HIT sessions (20 min on a treadmill) prescribed and regulated by their HR (HR: 1 min at 50% alternated with 1 min at 85% of reserve HR) or RPE (RPE: 1 minute at the 9-11 level [very light-fairly light] alternated with 1 minute at the 15-17 level [hard-very hard]) in random order. HR response and walking/running speed during the 20 min of exercise were compared between sessions. No significant difference between sessions was observed in HR during low- (HR: 135±15 bpm; RPE: 138±20 bpm) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 168±15 bpm; RPE: 170±18 bpm). Walking/running speed during low- (HR: 5.7±1.2 km · h(-1); RPE: 5.7±1.3 km · h(-1)) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 7.8±1.9 km · h(-1); RPE: 8.2±1.7 km · h(-1)) was also not different between sessions. No significant differences were observed in HR response and walking/running speed between HIT sessions prescribed and regulated by HR or RPE. This finding suggests that the 6-20 RPE scale may be a useful tool for prescribing and self-regulating HIT in young subjects.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus