Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2025
Rating of Perceived Exertion as Prescription Tool to Maximize Oxygen Uptake Response during High-Intensity Interval Training.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bok Daniel, Turk Emma, Gulin Jere, Rakovac Marija, Foster Carl
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were to 1) investigate the prescriptive validity of Borg's category-ratio 10 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for high-intensity interval training (HIIT) using the criterion of accumulated time ≥90% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ), 2) determine the optimal RPE category for HIIT prescription, and 3) analyze the physiological responses to RPE-prescribed HIIT sessions.
METHODS: Seventeen (12 male) current and former physical education students (age: 24.2 ± 5 years, height: 181.3 ± 7.3, weight: 77.5 ± 12.2 kg; % body fat: 14.3 ± 4.3%) volunteered to participate in the study. Within four visits, separated by at least 48 hours, the participants performed a maximal incremental exercise test and three HIIT sessions. The HIIT sessions included three 3-minute intervals prescribed at RPE 6, 7, or 8, interspersed with 2-minute passive rest.
RESULTS: Time ≥90% VO 2max and ≥90% maximal heart rate as well as mean and peak running speed, heart rate, VO 2 , respiratory frequency, peak minute ventilation (V E ), and blood lactate were all significantly lower in HIIT RPE6 compared with HIIT RPE7 and HIIT RPE8 , while there were no significant differences between HIIT RPE7 and HIIT RPE8 . Mean V E was significantly different between all three HIIT sessions, indicating the validity of RPE for HIIT prescription.
CONCLUSIONS: RPE can be used to effectively prescribe long format HIIT sessions. RPE 7 appears to be an optimal prescription category as HIIT RPE7 elicited similar cardiovascular and metabolic responses to HIIT RPE8 but with lower ventilatory stress. V E appeared to be the main perceptual cue for the regulation of running speed, while VO 2 was mainly governed by the dynamics of running speed adjustments during HIIT intervals.
METHODS: Seventeen (12 male) current and former physical education students (age: 24.2 ± 5 years, height: 181.3 ± 7.3, weight: 77.5 ± 12.2 kg; % body fat: 14.3 ± 4.3%) volunteered to participate in the study. Within four visits, separated by at least 48 hours, the participants performed a maximal incremental exercise test and three HIIT sessions. The HIIT sessions included three 3-minute intervals prescribed at RPE 6, 7, or 8, interspersed with 2-minute passive rest.
RESULTS: Time ≥90% VO 2max and ≥90% maximal heart rate as well as mean and peak running speed, heart rate, VO 2 , respiratory frequency, peak minute ventilation (V E ), and blood lactate were all significantly lower in HIIT RPE6 compared with HIIT RPE7 and HIIT RPE8 , while there were no significant differences between HIIT RPE7 and HIIT RPE8 . Mean V E was significantly different between all three HIIT sessions, indicating the validity of RPE for HIIT prescription.
CONCLUSIONS: RPE can be used to effectively prescribe long format HIIT sessions. RPE 7 appears to be an optimal prescription category as HIIT RPE7 elicited similar cardiovascular and metabolic responses to HIIT RPE8 but with lower ventilatory stress. V E appeared to be the main perceptual cue for the regulation of running speed, while VO 2 was mainly governed by the dynamics of running speed adjustments during HIIT intervals.