Related Experiment Videos
[Comparison between the prescription of physical training intensity based on the standard ergometric test and on the
M U Rondon1, C L Forjaz, N Nunes
1Instituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas, FMUSP.
Purpose:
To compare the lower (LL) and upper limits (UL) of exercise intensity prescription based on standard exercise test (60-70% of estimated VO2max or 70-85% of HRmax measured) with exercise intensity prescription based on cardiopulmonary exercise test [anaerobic threshold (AT) and respiratory compensation point (RCP)].
Methods:
Fourty seven men (30 +/- 5 years) who were submitted to a progressive cardiopulmonary exercise test until exhaustion were divided in subgroups according to treadmill speed during exercise test (4 or 5 mph) and the physical capacity [lower (LPC) and moderate physical capacity (MPC)].
Results:
The LL of the indirect exercise intensity prescription showed VO2 and HR values significantly higher than VO2 and HR values measured at AT (4 mph = 34.4 +/- 4.5 vs 19.6 +/- 4.6 and 5 mph = 28.9 +/- 2 vs 18.9 +/- 5.4, and LPC = 32.0 +/- 4.1 vs 17.2 +/- 2.8 and MPC = 31.6 +/- 4.9 vs 21.1 +/- 5.7 mlO2.kg-1.min-1) and (4 mph = 128.9 +/- 7.8 vs 113.1 +/- 15.6 and 5 mph = 130.3 +/- 5.2 vs 114.1 +/- 18.9, and LPC = 127.6 +/- 7.2 vs 109.3 +/- 13.2 and MPC = 131.2 +/- 5.7 vs 117.4 +/- 19.2 bpm) The UL of the indirect exercise intensity prescription in 4 mph and LPC group showed VO2 values significantly higher than those measured at RCP (40.1 +/- 5.3 vs 32.2 +/- 4.3 and 37.4 +/- 4.8 vs 30.6 +/- 2.5 mlO2.kg-1.min-1, respectively), but similar HR values to those obtained at RCP.
Conclusion:
The LL of prescription based on standard exercise test overestimate the AT, whereas the UL seem adequate only for subjects with moderate physical capacity.