6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is Perceived Exertion a Useful Indicator of the Metabolic and Cardiovascular Responses to a Metabolic Conditioning Session of Functional Fitness?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of this study was to assess whether the self-regulation of training intensity based on rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is a reliable method to control the intensity during metabolic conditioning sessions of functional fitness. In addition, the relationship between RPE and the changes in heart rate, number of repetitions, and lactate responses was also analyzed. Eight male participants (age 28.1 ± 5.4 years; body mass 77.2 ± 4.4 kg; VO 2 max: 52.6 ± 4.6 mL·(kg·min) −1 completed two sessions (five to seven days apart), in a randomized order, under different conditions, as follows: (1) all-out (ALL), or (2) self-regulation of intensity based on an RPE of six (hard) on the Borg CR-10 scale (RPE6). The rating of perceived exertion, lactate (LAC), and heart rate (HR) response were measured before, during, and immediately after the sessions. The RPE and LAC during the all-out sessions were higher ( p < 0.0005) than the RPE6 session for all of the analyzed time points during the session. There was no difference in the HR area under the curve for the all-out and RPE6 sessions. The average number of repetitions performed was lower ( p ≤ 0.009) for the RPE6 session (190.5 ± 12.5 repetitions) when compared to the all-out session (214.4 ± 18.6 repetitions). There was a significant correlation between the RPE and LAC ( p = 0.005; r = 0.66; large) and number of repetitions during the session ( p = 0.026; r = 0.55; large). No correlation was observed between the RPE and HR ( p = 0.147; r = 0.380). These results indicate that the self-regulation of intensity of effort based on the RPE may be a useful tool to control the exercise intensity during a metabolic conditioning session of functional fitness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          High-intensity compared to moderate-intensity training for exercise initiation, enjoyment, adherence, and intentions: an intervention study

          Background Understanding exercise participation for overweight and obese adults is critical for preventing comorbid conditions. Group-based high-intensity functional training (HIFT) provides time-efficient aerobic and resistance exercise at self-selected intensity levels which can increase adherence; behavioral responses to HIFT are unknown. This study examined effects of HIFT as compared to moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance training (ART) on exercise initiation, enjoyment, adherence, and intentions. Methods A stratified, randomized two-group pre-test posttest intervention was conducted for eight weeks in 2012 with analysis in 2013. Participants (n = 23) were stratified by median age (< or ≥ 28) and body mass index (BMI; < or ≥ 30.5). Participants were physically inactive with an average BMI of 31.1 ± 3.5 kg/m2, body fat percentage of 42.0 ± 7.4%, weight of 89.5 ± 14.2 kg, and ages 26.8 ± 5.9 years. Most participants were white, college educated, female, and married/engaged. Both groups completed 3 training sessions per week. The ART group completed 50 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise each session and full-body resistance training on two sessions per week. The HIFT group completed 60-minute sessions of CrossFit™ with actual workouts ranging from 5–30 minutes. Participants completed baseline and posttest questionnaires indicating reasons for exercise initiation (baseline), exercise enjoyment, and exercise intentions (posttest). Adherence was defined as completing 90% of exercise sessions. Daily workout times were recorded. Results Participants provided mostly intrinsic reasons for exercise initiation. Eighteen participants adhered (ART = 9, 81.8%; HIFT = 9, 75%). HIFT dropouts (p = .012) and ART participants (p = .009) reported lower baseline exercise enjoyment than HIFT participants, although ART participants improved enjoyment at posttest (p = .005). More HIFT participants planned to continue the same exercise than ART participants (p = .002). No significant changes in BMI or body composition were found. Workouts were shorter for HIFT than ART (p < .001). Conclusions HIFT participants spent significantly less time exercising per week, yet were able to maintain exercise enjoyment and were more likely to intend to continue. High-intensity exercise options should be included in public health interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: http://NCT02185872. Registered 9 July 2014.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Debunking the myths about training load, injury and performance: empirical evidence, hot topics and recommendations for practitioners

            Since 2000, there has been a rapid growth in training load and injury research. In the past 5 years alone, a total of 38 studies (from as many as 24 different research groups, and 11 different sports) have investigated the relationship between loading profiles and injury. Despite the growing body of literature examining training load and injury, there is often a disconnect between this evidence and the actual training programmes prescribed in practice. In this paper, some common myths and misconceptions about training load and its role in injury and performance are reviewed. Common myths relating to training load (the role of training load in injuries, the ‘10% rule’, the influence of spikes and troughs on injury risk and the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR)) are explored and discussed. Although the likelihood of injury is increased at an ACWR of ≥1.5 ( on average ), the difference between robust and fragile athletes can largely be explained by three key categories of moderators of the workload—injury relationship; ‘ideal’ age (ie, not too young or too old), physical qualities (eg, well-developed aerobic fitness, speed, repeated-sprint ability and lower body strength) and high chronic training load all decrease the risk associated with a given spike in workload. Rather than focusing solely on the ACWR as has been done in some studies, practitioners are advised to stratify players according to these three moderators of the workload—injury relationship (eg, age, training and injury history, physical qualities), and interpret internal and external load variables in combination with well-being and physical readiness data. When prescribing training load, the practitioner also needs to factor in injury risk factors such as poor biomechanics, academic and emotional stress, anxiety, inadequate sleep and stress-related personality traits. Rapid increases in training and competition workloads and low chronic workloads are associated with greater injury risk. These findings suggest that appropriately staged training programmes may reduce injury risk in athletes. There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to test this working hypothesis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pacing and awareness: brain regulation of physical activity.

              The aim of this current opinion article is to provide a contemporary perspective on the role of brain regulatory control of paced performances in response to exercise challenges. There has been considerable recent conjecture as to the role of the brain during exercise, and it is now broadly accepted that fatigue does not occur without brain involvement and that all voluntary activity is likely to be paced at some level by the brain according to individualised priorities and knowledge of personal capabilities. This article examines the role of pacing in managing and distributing effort to successfully accomplish physical tasks, while extending existing theories on the role of the brain as a central controller of performance. The opinion proposed in this article is that a central regulator operates to control exercise performance but achieves this without the requirement of an intelligent central governor located in the subconscious brain. It seems likely that brain regulation operates at different levels of awareness, such that minor homeostatic challenges are addressed automatically without conscious awareness, while larger metabolic disturbances attract conscious awareness and evoke a behavioural response. This supports the view that the brain regulates exercise performance but that the interpretation of the mechanisms underlying this effect have not yet been fully elucidated.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sports (Basel)
                Sports (Basel)
                sports
                Sports
                MDPI
                2075-4663
                04 July 2019
                July 2019
                : 7
                : 7
                : 161
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFTM), Cuiabá 78000, MT, Brazil
                [2 ]Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, Faculty Estacio of Vitoria, Vitoria 29010, ES, Brazil
                [3 ]Graduation Program on Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia 04534, DF, Brazil
                [4 ]Athlete Health Lab, Van Vliet Complex, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H9, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: ramirestibana@ 123456gmail.com ; Tel.: +55-61-991-367-057
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5854-616X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2397-5866
                Article
                sports-07-00161
                10.3390/sports7070161
                6681255
                31277360
                24e18fee-18b9-4e69-8e5b-c07a5569c97a
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 23 May 2019
                : 02 July 2019
                Categories
                Article

                crossfit,high-intensity functional training,extreme conditioning programs,overtraining,overreaching

                Comments

                Comment on this article