Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001541
Title of the Article: Precision, accuracy, and performance outcomes of perceived exertion versus heart rate guided run-training Research Laboratory: University of Connecticut, Human Performance Laboratory, Storrs, CT
Douglas J. Casa Lindsay A. Ellis Carl M. Maresh
2095 Hillside Rd, Unit 1110 Storrs, CT 06269
A
Linda S. Pescatello Matthew S. Ganio Elaine C. Lee Lawrence E. Armstrong
307-766-5282
307-766-4098
Corresponding Author:
E-mail
D
Fax #
[email protected]
559-278-2016
559-278-7010
[email protected]
860-486–3624
860-486-1123
[email protected]
250-807-9904
250-807-9865
[email protected]
C EP
Riana R. Pryor
1000 E. University Ave. Laramie, WY 82071 5275 N. Campus Drive M/S SG28 Fresno, CA 93740 2095 Hillside Rd, Unit 1110 Storrs, CT 06269 Okanagan Campus ART360 (Arts Building) 1147 Research Road Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7 135 PAES Building 305 W. 17th Ave. Columbus, OH 43210 2095 Hillside Rd, Unit 1110 Storrs, CT 06269 155 Stadium Dr., HPER 321 Fayetteville, AR, 72701 2095 Hillside Rd, Unit 1110 Storrs, CT 06269
C
Evan C. Johnson
Phone #
TE
Address
614-292-3675
614-292-7229
[email protected]
860-486-0008
860-486-1123
[email protected]
479-575-2956
479-575-5778
[email protected]
860-486–3169
860-486-1123
[email protected]
860-486-2647
860-486-1123
[email protected]
Evan C. Johnson University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave. Corbett Building 109 Laramie, WY 82071
Phone: 307-766-5282 Fax: 307-766-4098
[email protected]
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Preferred Running Head:
Perceived exertion verses heart rate
Abstract Word Count:
209
Text-Only Word Count:
3,409
Figures and Tables:
1 table, 4 figures
A
C
C EP
TE
D
Disclosure of Funding: Timex Inc. provided funding to support the above investigation. Timex Inc. was not involved in data collection, interpretation or presentation. No authors receive compensation directly through Timex Inc.
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1 Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to compare run-prescription by HR versus RPE during six
3
weeks to determine which is superior for consistent achievement of target intensities and
4
improved performance. 40 untrained males participated in this laboratory and field controlled
5
trial. Participants were divided into heart rate (HRTG) and rating of perceived exertion training
6
groups (RPETG). All underwent maximal graded exercise testing and a 12 min run test before
7
and following training. Intensity was prescribed as either a target HR or RPE that corresponded
8
to four relative intensity levels; 45, 60, 75, and 90%VO2 reserve (VO2R). Mean exercise
9
intensity over the six weeks did not differ between HRTG (65.6±7.2 %HRR) and RPETG (61.9±9.0 %HRR). VO2max (+4.1±2.5 mL·kg-1·min-1) and 12 min run distance (+240.1±150.1m)
11
improved similarly in HRTG and RPETG (p>0.05). HRTG displayed lower coefficients of
12
variation (CV) (5.9±4.1%, 3.3±3.8%, and 3.0±2.2%) and %error (4.1±4.7%, 2.3±4.1% and
13
2.6±3.2%) at 45, 60, and 75% VO2R compared to RPETG (CV 11.1±5.0%, 7.7±4.1% and
14
5.6±3.2%; all p 0.249).
158
Additionally, relative HRR were not different at any intensity level between groups (55±8, 68±6,
159
81±5, 93±3%HRR; 56±6, 69±7, 81±6, 93±3%HRR; all p > 0.509) for HRTG and RPETG,
160
respectively.
TE
D
157
Achieved training intensity - Across the six weeks of training, distance covered by HRTG
162
(118.6±2.1 km) was similar to RPETG 115.0±2.0 km; p = 0.577). Also, mean HRavg (151±11 vs
163
145±14 beats·min-1; p = 0.103) and mean %HRR (66±7 vs 62±9 %HRR; p = 0.166) were not
164
different. No differences were noted in HR at any of the individually prescribed intensity levels:
165
45%VO2R (134±12 vs 127±1 BPM; p = 0.133), 60%VO2R (154±12 vs 146±18 BPM; p =
166
0.140), 75%%VO2R (168±9 vs 165±10 BPM; p = 0.270), or 90%VO2R (174±9 vs 173±7 BPM;
167
p = 0.848) between HRTG and RPETG, respectively.
C EP
161
168
Training adaptations – Main effects of the training intervention were observed for body
170
mass (85.2±1.4 to 84.1±1.4 kg; p = 0.044) and BMI (27.5±0.4 to 27.1±0.4; p = 0.047). VO2max
171
increased in HRTG (44.6±5.7 to 48.6±5.8 mL·kg-1·min-1;p < 0.001) (absolute: 3.7±0.6 L·min-1 to
173
A
172
C
169
4.0±0.7 L·min-1, p < 0.001) and in RPETG (43.9±5.2 to 48.1±4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1;p < 0.001)
(absolute: 3.8±0.5 L·min-1 to 4.1±0.4 L·min-1, p < 0.001). The 12 min run distance also
174
improved in HRTG (2247±420 to 2487±335m) and in RPETG (2294±277, 2534±295m) (both p
175
< 0.001). No interactions were observed between training groups for either measurement
8
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
176
meaning that performance gains were similar in response to both run-intensity prescription
177
techniques. Training intensity accuracy and precision - Lower CVs were observed in HRTG
179
compared to RPETG at 45 (5.9±4.1, vs. 11.1±5.0%), 60 (3.3±3.8, vs. 7.7±4.1%), and 75%VO2R
180
(3.0±2.2, vs. 5.6±3.2%; all p ≤ 0.005), but not at 90%VO2R (4.2±4.0, vs. 3.8±2.4%; p=0.740).
181
Individual values are displayed in Figure 3. No differences between groups were observed for
182
%error for HRTG versus RPETG (-2.1±5.7 vs. -5.9±10.6%; -1.0±3.2 vs.-4.0±7.4%: -2.3±2.8 vs.
183
-2.5±5.4%: and -7.7±3.7 vs. -6.3±3.6%; all p ≥0.300) for the 45, 60, 75, and 90%VO2R intensity
184
levels, respectively. However, conversion of %error to absolute values displayed differences
185
between groups at 45 (4.1±4.7 vs. 15.7±9.2%), 60 (2.3±4.1 vs. 10.6±9.2%) and 75%VO2R
186
(2.6±3.2 vs. 6.7±3.2%; all p ≤ 0.001), but not 90%VO2R (7.7±4.4 vs. 6.3±4.3%; p=0.327).
187
Across the six weeks, average RPE was not different in HRTG (13±1) and RPETG
188
(12±1; p = 0.159). Non-rounded mean RPE values for each group as a function of average
189
%HRR achieved and in comparison to prescribed values at each intensity level are displayed in
190
Figure 4. No significant between-group differences in RPE were observed at any of the
191
individually prescribed intensity levels; 45%VO2R (9±1, 9±2; p = 0.810), 60%VO2R (11±1,
192
11±2; p = 0.208), 75%VO2R (14±1, 13±1; p = 0.051), or 90%VO2R (16±1, 15±1; p = 0.289)
194 195 196 197
TE
C EP
C
A
193
D
178
between HRTG and RPETG, respectively.
DISCUSSION The goal of this investigation was to analyze the accuracy, precision, and performance outcomes of two methods of run training prescription. The main findings were that precision and 9
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
accuracy were superior with the HR-based run intensity prescription technique, however, these
199
differences did not manifest any group differences in achieved training intensity or the cardio-
200
respiratory and performance outcomes of run training. Individuals within RPETG displayed up
201
to 5.2% more variation in exercise intensity between repeated sessions at the same intensity and
202
up to 11.6% greater %error from GXT derived intensity compared to HRTG.
D
198
The present findings are similar to those found in previous, non-exercise-training
204
investigations which demonstrated RPE can be used alone to prescribe exercise intensity. (8, 12)
205
In these studies, participants replicated relative exercise intensities after being prompted by
206
corresponding RPE integers reported and recorded during a prior GXT. The difference was that
207
these participants only replicated on one occasion as opposed to the multiple bouts over six
208
weeks as in the current investigation. Furthermore, our results add to this literature base by
209
showing that despite group differences in accuracy and precision of replication of low running
210
intensities the achieved group training intensities and the outcomes of run-training are similar
211
between individuals prescribed by HR or by RPE.
C EP
TE
203
The present results suggest that there may be increased variability in run training
213
intensity when prescribed by RPE, but also a lack of a systematic under-production as has been
214
shown in previous RPE validations studies. A study by Dunbar et al. (13) showed a 27
216
A
C
212
217
(8) demonstrated that individuals when prompted by RPE fell on average five beats·min-1 below
218
the HR they displayed during the preceding GXT. Based on these findings it could be assumed
219
that those that train with RPE prescription only would tend to chronically under-exert and
220
performance gains would be attenuated due to the well-known relationship between total
215
beats·min-1 lower heart rates and -0.7 L·min-1 when participants attempted to replicate 70%VO2max after only being cued with their RPE from a previous GXT. Similarly, Chow et al.
10
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
exercise load (i.e., the sum of training frequency, intensity, and time) and changes in athletic
222
performance. (5) However, over six weeks, as a group RPETG did not exercise at a lower
223
intensity, nor did they achieve smaller improvements in fitness. Also, it must be added that the
224
observed results relating to increased variability and percent error are specific to the sample
225
population. There is evidence that that factors such as age, gender, training status, and exercise
226
modality all influence the relationship between RPE and exercise intensity (7) and thus these
227
findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to individuals who are experienced runners.
TE
D
221
The finding of similar fitness outcomes between HR versus RPE-prescribed training has
229
been demonstrated previously. (6) Celine et al, demonstrated equal improvements in VO2max in
230
cycling groups regulating interval training by HR or RPE. The current investigation augments
231
this finding in that it shows a similar result when steady state running is employed as the type of
232
exercise modality. However, some of the results of Ilarraza et al. differ from our findings. (19)
233
They reported improved cycling power output following one month of training within a group
234
that utilized HR controlled cycle ergometers but no significant improvements in a group that
235
self-regulated exercise intensity with RPE. Despite the difference between groups in cycling
236
power, similar to the current investigation, no differences existed between groups in training
237
intensity, or in a separate exercise performance measurement (time to exhaustion during a
238
maximal cycling test). Therefore, based on the present results and those of similar previous
239
A
C
C EP
228
240
when compared to RPE, but neither method should be considered superior when average group
241
exercise intensities or most types of performance improvements are concerned.
242 243
studies it appears that small differences in intensity may exist between groups training with HR
However, in the current investigation similar group means in achieved intensity must not be interpreted to mean that the two prescription techniques were equivalent. At the 45 and 11
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
60%VO2R intensity levels, the difference in the mean %HRR was similar despite twofold
245
differences in CV and a fourfold difference in absolute value of %error in RPETG. The
246
>15%error observed in RPETG at the lowest exercise prescription intensity equated to -60 to
247
+60 beats·min-1 away from the theoretically prescribed HR. This finding is important because it
248
does demonstrate how the subjective nature of RPE may be detrimental to precise run training
249
intensity prescription, especially in a group setting. The over production of run intensity within
250
the RPE group may be due to the Köhler effect in which individuals tend to work harder when
251
part of a group than when on their own(15), and specifically that lower performing participants
252
tend to reach towards higher performing individuals. (16) Therefore, the individuals who started
253
with lower cardio-respiratory fitness may have non-intentionally exercised at a higher intensity
254
when the prescribed intensity was low due to increased intrinsic motivation. Their perception of
255
effort may have truly been consistent with their GXT, but due to the external stimulus of a group
256
training atmosphere part of the perception of effort was altered.
TE
C EP
257
D
244
On the other hand, some participants far under-produced the target intensity when participating in exercise bouts at the 45 and 60% intensities. This may be partially due to the
259
running bout nature of the exercise protocol. During each training session, individuals
260
participated in two or three bouts of running at varying intensities. It is possible that when the
261
lower intensity bouts occurred before a more intense bout some individuals under-exerted in an
262
A
C
258
263
lower intensity bout followed a more intense bout the psychological and physical effort from the
264
first bout carried over into the second bout despite the rest period between running bouts. In
265
both cases of over- and under-exertion participants still reported RPEs similar to what was
266
prescribed. Future investigations may seek to limit under and over-exertion by incentivizing
effort to “save their energy” for the harder task ahead. Conversely, it is possible that when a
12
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
participants who are able to match their physiologic stressors. However, this type of motivation
268
removes part of the psychological aspect of RPE. These challenges highlight the difficulty that
269
occurs when exercise physiologists seek to use a psychophysiological instrument to precisely
270
match previously experienced exercise intensities. Also, this adds value to the ACSM’s position
271
that, when available, the use of a HR monitor together with RPE is preferable to HR alone.
272
D
267
Over six weeks, mean RPE values were similar. However, as shown in Figure 4, there appeared to be a trend towards higher exertion within HRTG at the higher prescribed intensities
274
while RPE appeared similar at lower intensities. In addition to the mention of the Khöler effect
275
above, these inconsistencies can be partially explained by the psychological classification of
276
augmenters and reducers introduced by Robertson et al.. (27) At the 45%VO2R intensity level,
277
RPETG had a nearly identical RPE compared to HRTG despite an 8 beats·min-1 difference. At
278
the two highest intensity levels, RPE was skewed lower for RPETG despite similar relative mean
279
intensities. In these cases, a majority of the members of RPETG may have reduced their
280
perception, regardless of physical intensity, to match the prescribed integer. The present study
281
provides evidence that the augmenter and reducer psychological states do exist, however, the
282
state may also be dependent on the exercise intensity and exercise prescription technique.
284 285
C EP
C
In total the above data suggest that RPE and HR guided exercise intensity prescription are
A
283
TE
273
equivalent at the population level. All novice runners should be encouraged to begin, or
continue an exercise program using either technique as they will receive equivalent fitness
286
benefits. The within individual higher variation in achieved intensity over repeated bouts, and a
287
larger deviation from the intensity demonstrated during the initial GXT while reporting a similar
288
RPE are limitations to the use of RPE to prescribe and self-regulate exercise intensity. One
289
strength of the current study is that the run training and measurements took place in group 13
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
settings, similar to many academic training regimens. However, this also introduced many
291
extraneous motivational and perceptual factors which may have had an impact on participants’
292
perception of effort and/or motivation. Future research should seek to expand on the current
293
findings by applying a similar prescription construct when run training occurs with participants
294
isolated and in a neutral environment.
D
290
295 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
297
Beginning a scheduled running program can be an intimidating process for the novice runner
298
seeking to begin an exercise program in an effort to lose bodyweight and/or improve fitness.
299
There may be minimal benefits related to the utilization of a heart rate monitor during run
300
training. Our findings suggest that novice male runners are better able to replicate specific
301
exercise intensities on multiple occasions and these intensities are more closely related to the
302
relative exercise intensity benchmark that was prescribed. However, it does not appear that HR
303
monitors are necessary for run training in this population because the changes in body weight,
304
BMI, and cardiorespiratory fitness were similar between the group using HR monitors and the
305
group using RPE to self-regulate training intensity.
A
C
C EP
TE
296
14
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
306
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
307 308 309 310
For their assistance during data collection and analysis, the authors are grateful to; Doctors CXM, JMA, and ALM.
311
REFERENCES References
313 314 315
1. Aamot, IL, Forbord, SH, Karlsen, T, and Stoylen, A. Does rating of perceived exertion result in target exercise intensity during interval training in cardiac rehabilitation? A study of the Borg scale versus a heart rate monitor. J. Sci. Med. Sport S1440-2440: 184, 2013.
316 317
2. Acevedo, EO, and Goldfarb, AH. Increased training intensity effects on plasma lactate, ventilatory threshold, and endurance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21: 563-568, 1989.
318 319
3. Achten, J, and Jeukendrup, AE. Heart rate monitoring: applications and limitations. Sports Med. 33: 517-538, 2003.
320 321
4. Borg, G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 2: 9298, 1970.
322 323
5. Borresen, J, and Lambert, MI. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med. 39: 779-795, 2009.
324 325 326
6. Celine, CG, Monnier-Benoit, P, Groslambert, A, Tordi, N, Perrey, S, and Rouillon, JD. The perceived exertion to regulate a training program in young women. J. Strength Cond Res. 25: 220-224, 2011.
327 328
7. Chen, MJ, Fan, X, and Moe, ST. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. 20: 873-899, 2002.
329 330
8. Chow, RJ, and Wilmore, JH. The Regulation of Exercise Intensity by Ratings of Perceived Exertion. J. Cardiac Rehabil. 4: 382, 1984.
TE
C EP
C
A
331 332 333
D
312
9. Colberg, SR, Swain, DP, and Vinik, AI. Use of heart rate reserve and rating of perceived exertion to prescribe exercise intensity in diabetic autonomic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 26: 986-990, 2003.
334 335
10. Cooper, KH. A means of assessing maximal oxygen intake. Correlation between field and treadmill testing. JAMA 203: 201-204, 1968.
336 337
11. Donnelly, JE, Blair, SN, Jakicic, JM, Manore, MM, Rankin, JW, Smith, BK, and American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate 15
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41: 459-471, 2009.
340 341 342
12. Dunbar, CC, Robertson, RJ, Baun, R, Blandin, MF, Metz, K, Burdett, R, and Goss, FL. The validity of regulating exercise intensity by ratings of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 24: 94-99, 1992.
343 344 345
13. Dunbar, CC, Robertson, RJ, Baun, R, Blandin, MF, Metz, K, Burdett, R, and Goss, FL. The validity of regulating exercise intensity by ratings of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 24: 94-99, 1992.
346 347 348
14. Dunbar, CC, Goris, C, Michielli, DW, and Kalinski, MI. Accuracy and reproducibility of an exercise prescription based on Ratings of Perceived Exertion for treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise. Percept. Mot. Skills 78: 1335-1344, 1994.
349 350
15. Feltz, DL, Kerr, NL, and Irwin, BC. Buddy up: the Kohler effect applied to health games. J. Sport. Exerc. Psychol. 33: 506-526, 2011.
351 352 353
16. Feltz, DL, Irwin, B, and Kerr, N. Two-player partnered exergame for obesity prevention: using discrepancy in players' abilities as a strategy to motivate physical activity. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 6: 820-827, 2012.
354 355 356 357 358
17. Garber, CE, Blissmer, B, Deschenes, MR, Franklin, BA, Lamonte, MJ, Lee, IM, Nieman, DC, Swain, DP, and American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 43: 1334-1359, 2011.
359 360
18. Glass, SC, Knowlton, RG, and Becque, MD. Accuracy of RPE from graded exercise to establish exercise training intensity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 24: 1303-1307, 1992.
361 362 363
19. Ilarraza, H, Myers, J, Kottman, W, Rickli, H, and Dubach, P. An evaluation of training responses using self-regulation in a residential rehabilitation program. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 24: 27-33, 2004.
364 365
A
366 367 368 369 370 371
C
C EP
TE
D
338 339
20. Lambert, MI, Mbambo, ZH, and St Clair Gibson, A. Heart rate during training and competition for long-distance running. J. Sports Sci. 16 Suppl: S85-90, 1998. 21. Maresh, CM, Noble, BJ. Utilization of perceived exertion ratings during exercise testing and training. In: Cardiac Rehabilitation; Exercise Testing and Prescription. Hall, LK, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: SP Medical & Scientific Books, 1984. pp. 155.
22. Moholdt, T, Aamot, IL, Granoien, I, Gjerde, L, Myklebust, G, Walderhaug, L, Brattbakk, L, Hole, T, Graven, T, Stolen, TO, Amundsen, BH, Molmen-Hansen, HE, Stoylen, A, Wisloff, U, and Slordahl, SA. Aerobic interval training increases peak oxygen uptake more than usual care
16
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
exercise training in myocardial infarction patients: a randomized controlled study. Clin. Rehabil. 26: 33-44, 2012.
374 375
23. Noakes, TD, Lambert, MI, and Gleeson, M. Heart rate monitoring and exercise: challenges for the future. J. Sports Sci. 16 Suppl: S105-6, 1998.
376 377
24. Penry, JT, Wilcox, AR, and Yun, J. Validity and reliability analysis of Cooper's 12-minute run and the multistage shuttle run in healthy adults. J. Strength Cond Res. 25: 597-605, 2011.
378 379
25. Pescatello, LS, Arena, R, Riebe, D, and Thompson, PD. ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. In: Anonymous Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
380 381
26. Pribis, P, Burtnack, CA, McKenzie, SO, and Thayer, J. Trends in body fat, body mass index and physical fitness among male and female college students. Nutrients 2: 1075-1085, 2010.
382 383
27. Robertson, RJ, Gillespie, RL, Hiatt, E, and Rose, KD. Perceived exertion and stimulus intensity modulation. Percept. Mot. Skills 45: 211-218, 1977.
384 385 386
28. Springer, JB, Lamborn, SD, and Pollard, DM. Maintaining physical activity over time: the importance of basic psychological need satisfaction in developing the physically active self. Am. J. Health Promot. 27: 284-293, 2013.
387 388 389
29. Whaley, MH, Brubaker, PH, Kaminsky, LA, and Miller, CR. Validity of rating of perceived exertion during graded exercise testing in apparently healthy adults and cardiac patients. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 17: 261-267, 1997.
390 391
30. Williams, PT. Relationship of running intensity to hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 40: 1740-1748, 2008.
C EP
TE
D
372 373
A
C
392
17
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
393
Level*
RPETG
HRTG
RPETG
45%
137 (13)
137 (12)
9 (2)
10 (2)
60%
155 (12)
153 (13)
11 (2)
11 (1)
75%
172 (11)
169 (12)
13 (2)
13 (1)
90%
189 (10)
185 (11)
16 (1)
16 (1)
C
C EP
TE
HRTG
D
Table 1. Exercise prescription derived from graded exercise testing. * Intensity level determined 395 as percentage of 396 Prescribed Heart Prescribed Rating of maximal oxygen 397 consumption reserve. Rate Perceived Exertion Intensity
A
394
18
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
398 FIGURE CAPTIONS
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418
Figure 1.
Example of heart rate and rating of perceived exertion pre-participation titration. Integer equivalents for 45, 60, 75, and 90% VO2R in this example are 149,10; 172,12; 190,14; 204,17, for HR and RPE, respectively.
Figure 2.
Duration (total minutes) of each prescribed running intensity for two week blocks.
Figure 3.
Coefficient of variation (CV) and percent error (%error) for individual participants. For each panel, individual participant values are displayed in ascending order. Significant mean differences in CV and the %error were observed between HRTG (open bars) and RPETG (black bars) at the 45 (A, B), 60 (C, D), and 70% VO2R (E, F) exercise prescription levels.
Figure 4.
RPE as a function of achieved percentage of heart rate reserve (%HRR) for heart rate training group (HRTG) and RPE training group (RPETG). Markers (+) representing prescribed %HRR and RPE are means for the entire sample population, combined because no significant differences were observed between prescribed %HRR or RPE at any of the intensity levels.
A
C
C EP
TE
D
399 400
19
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Figure 1
196
EP TE
184 172
Exercise Intensity Determination
160 148 136 124 112 100 76 64
0%
C C
88
15%
30%
45%
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
60%
75%
90%
Volume of Oxygen Consumed (mL∙kg-1∙min-1)
A
Heart Rate (BPM)
20
D
208
Rating of Perceived Exertion
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Rating of Perceived Exertion
Heart Rate
Figure 2
45%
60%
75%
90%
D
350
55
300
45
200
20 35
50
C C
150
60
85
125
115
A
Time running (min)
250
100
EP TE
25
155 105
35
0
Weeks 1 & 2
Weeks 3 & 4
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Weeks 5 & 6
A
C C
EP TE
D
Figure 3.
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Figure 4.
HRTG Achieved
RPETG Achieved
Prescribed value
18
D
90% VO2R
15 14 13 12 11
60% VO2R
45% VO2R
75% VO2R
C C
10 9
EP TE
16
8 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%
A
Rating of Perceived Exertion
17
Percentage Heart Rate Reserve
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association