Precision, accuracy, and performance outcomes of perceived exertion ...

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


Weeks 5 & 6

A

C C

EP TE

D

Figure 3.


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


17

Percentage Heart Rate Reserve
