Abstract

BackgroundThere is individual variability to cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training, but the underlying cause is not well understood. Traditionally, a standardized approach to exercise prescription has utilized relative percentages of maximal heart rate, heart rate reserve (HRR), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), or VO2 reserve to establish exercise intensity. However, this model fails to take into consideration individual metabolic responses to exercise and may attribute to the variability in training responses. It has been proposed that an individualized approach would take into consideration metabolic responses to exercises to increase responsiveness to training.MethodsIn this randomized control trial, participants will undergo a 12-week exercise intervention using individualized (ventilatory thresholds) and standardized (HRR) methods to prescribe CRF training intensity. Following the intervention, participants will be categorized as responders or non-responders based on changes in maximal aerobic abilities. Participants who are non-responders will complete a second 12-week intervention in a crossover design to determine whether they can become responders with a differing exercise prescription. There are four main research outcomes: (1) determine the cohort-specific technical error to use in the categorization of response rate; (2) determine if an individualized intensity prescription is superior to a standard approach in regards to VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors; (3) investigate the time course changes throughout 12 weeks of CRF training between the two intervention groups; and (4) determine if non-responders can become responders if the exercise prescription is modified.DiscussionThe findings from this research will provide evidence on the effectiveness of individualized exercise prescription related to training responsiveness of VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors compared to a standardized approach and further our understanding of individual exercise responses. If the individualized approach proposed is deemed effective, it may change the way exercise specialists prescribe exercise intensity to enhance training responsiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02868710. Registered on 15 August 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1735-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • There is individual variability to cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training, but the underlying cause is not well understood

  • Research aims The objective of this research is to determine the incidence of response to maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) after implementation of a standardized (%heart rate reserve (HRR)) and individualized approach to exercise prescription in a community wellness program for 12 weeks

  • There has been a considerable amount of individual variability reported in the literature related to the response of CRF measurements (VO2max and peak aerobic ability [VO2peak])

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is individual variability to cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training, but the underlying cause is not well understood. A standardized approach to exercise prescription has utilized relative percentages of maximal heart rate, heart rate reserve (HRR), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), or VO2 reserve to establish exercise intensity This model fails to take into consideration individual metabolic responses to exercise and may attribute to the variability in training responses. Based on an extensive search of the literature, to our knowledge, there is only one investigation that set out to determine the incidence of response based on exercise prescription using standard methods (%HRR) compared to individualized methods (threshold based) in which they found 100% of the individualized group responded in a positive manner [5] This investigation had several limitations including a modest intervention duration, only reported maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) changes, and sourced measurements for biological variability to use as criteria for response rate rather than testing for biological variability within the laboratory where data were collected

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call