Why the study?
Does RPE-regulated high-intensity interval training produce similar heart rate and speed responses compared to HR-regulated training in healthy young subjects?
Does RPE-regulated high-intensity interval training produce similar heart rate and speed responses compared to HR-regulated training in healthy young subjects?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The 6-20 Rating of Perceived Exertion scale is a simple, inexpensive, and effective tool for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training in young sedentary subjects, producing physiological responses comparable to heart rate-guided training.
The aim of the present study was to analyse the usefulness of the 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for prescribing and self-regulating high-intensity interval training (HIT) in young individuals. Eight healthy young subjects (age = 27.5±6.7 years) performed maximal graded exercise testing to determine their maximal and reserve heart rate (HR). Subjects then performed two HIT sessions (20 min on a treadmill) prescribed and regulated by their HR (HR: 1 min at 50% alternated with 1 min at 85% of reserve HR) or RPE (RPE: 1 minute at the 9-11 level [very light-fairly light] alternated with 1 minute at the 15-17 level [hard-very hard]) in random order. HR response and walking/running speed during the 20 min of exercise were compared between sessions. No significant difference between sessions was observed in HR during low- (HR: 135±15 bpm; RPE: 138±20 bpm) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 168±15 bpm; RPE: 170±18 bpm). Walking/running speed during low- (HR: 5.7±1.2 km · h(-1); RPE: 5.7±1.3 km · h(-1)) and high-intensity intervals (HR: 7.8±1.9 km · h(-1); RPE: 8.2±1.7 km · h(-1)) was also not different between sessions. No significant differences were observed in HR response and walking/running speed between HIT sessions prescribed and regulated by HR or RPE. This finding suggests that the 6-20 RPE scale may be a useful tool for prescribing and self-regulating HIT in young subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciolac et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: