Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHartshorn, James E. O.*
dc.contributor.authorLamb, Kevin L.*
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-28T16:10:05Z
dc.date.available2008-05-28T16:10:05Z
dc.date.issued2004-05-18
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Sports Medicine, 25, 2004, pp. 362-367
dc.identifier.issn0172-4622en
dc.identifier.issn1439-3964en
dc.identifier.doi10.1055/s-2004-815840
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/28732
dc.descriptionThis is the author's PDF version of an article published in International journal of sports medicine in 2004. The definitive version is available at www.thieme-connect.com.
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to assess the reproducibility over four trials of perceptually regulated exercise intensity during short-term cycle ergometry. Recent research has suggested that an improvement in the reproducibility (better agreement) of the exercise output would be observed with a repeated practice of using regulatory tools such as Borg’s 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Eighteen healthy active volunteers (nine males mean age (± SD) 24.7 ± 3.4 yr, and nine females 27.6 ± 5.4 yr) completed four identical intermittent effort production trials on a cycle ergometer, over a period of two-three weeks, with all trials being between three and five days apart. After warm-up, the volunteers were asked to produce four x three-minute bouts of exercise at RPE levels: 13, 15, 9, and 17 (in this order). Power output (W), percentage maximum heart rate reserve (%MHRR), and oxygen consumption (VO2; ml•kg-1•min-1) were recorded in the final minute of each bout. Analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between repeated trials did not decrease for the objective markers of exercise intensity, remaining wide throughout. In the worst case comparisons the LoA represented changes (expressed as a proportion of the mean of two trials) of up to 58.3% in power output (T2 vs. T3 at RPE 9), 65.5% in %MHRR (T1 vs. T2 at RPE 13) and 36.5% in VO2 (T3 vs. T4 at RPE 17). These findings question the use of ratings of perceived exertion to regulate exercise effort. That the reproducibility of effort is also not seen to improve with practice raises doubts over the validity of using the RPE scale for providing training intensities for this type of exercise.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis article was submitted to the RAE2008 for the University of Chester - Allied Health Professions and Studies.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherGeorg Thieme Verlag
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.thieme.de/fz/sportsmed/en
dc.subjectrating of perceived exertion (RPE)en
dc.subjectproduction modeen
dc.subjectreproducibilityen
dc.subjectlimits of agreementen
dc.titleThe reproducibility of perceptually regulated exercise responses during short-term cycle ergometryen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Chester
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Sports Medicineen
html.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to assess the reproducibility over four trials of perceptually regulated exercise intensity during short-term cycle ergometry. Recent research has suggested that an improvement in the reproducibility (better agreement) of the exercise output would be observed with a repeated practice of using regulatory tools such as Borg’s 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Eighteen healthy active volunteers (nine males mean age (± SD) 24.7 ± 3.4 yr, and nine females 27.6 ± 5.4 yr) completed four identical intermittent effort production trials on a cycle ergometer, over a period of two-three weeks, with all trials being between three and five days apart. After warm-up, the volunteers were asked to produce four x three-minute bouts of exercise at RPE levels: 13, 15, 9, and 17 (in this order). Power output (W), percentage maximum heart rate reserve (%MHRR), and oxygen consumption (VO2; ml•kg-1•min-1) were recorded in the final minute of each bout. Analysis revealed that the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between repeated trials did not decrease for the objective markers of exercise intensity, remaining wide throughout. In the worst case comparisons the LoA represented changes (expressed as a proportion of the mean of two trials) of up to 58.3% in power output (T2 vs. T3 at RPE 9), 65.5% in %MHRR (T1 vs. T2 at RPE 13) and 36.5% in VO2 (T3 vs. T4 at RPE 17). These findings question the use of ratings of perceived exertion to regulate exercise effort. That the reproducibility of effort is also not seen to improve with practice raises doubts over the validity of using the RPE scale for providing training intensities for this type of exercise.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
ChesterRep IJSM RPE 2004.pdf
Size:
199.5Kb
Format:
PDF
Request:
main article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record