Different physiological, but similar affective responses, facing different workload quantification methods

Abstract

Backgroung: The literature provides support for several different method by which it is possible to quantify, prescribe and control the aerobic workload. Objective: To compare physiological and the affective response among training methods prescribed by VO2 reserve, HR reserve, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) self-adjusted. Methods: 27 participants were submitted to two trail sessions. In the 1st, a maximum treadmill effort test was performed to determine the VO2max. In the 2nd, the participants were randomly divided into 3 situations of 5 min, with 5 min interval among the situations. In situation 1 (C1), the participants ran at the velocity correspondent to 65% of the VO2 reserve; in situation 2 (C2), participants ran at 60% to 65% of HR reserve and in situation 3 (C3), the participants self-adjustment the velocity by a RPE scale, in a moderate effort (RPE 3-4). The level of body activation and the affective response were obtained pre and post-stimulus administered. An ANOVA was performed and the magnitude of the differences established, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Results: There were no significant differences for velocity in the three situations (p = 0.458). The responses of HR induced by C1 and C3 were significantly higher vs. C2 (p = 0.027 and p = 0.043). The RPE did not show significant differences among the situations (p = 0.118). Finally, the level of activation and sensation perceived activity did not differ significantly (p = 0.168). Conclusion: It was concluded that the exercise responses from the HR reserve were significantly lower when compared to the VO2reserve and RPE. All prescription models provided similar affective responses.