RESUMEN
The purpose was to compare 24 participants' acute physiological and affective responses to two aerobic prescriptions in three sessions. Anthropometry, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and VO2max were recorded. In subsequent visits two aerobic prescriptions were randomly applied: one based on VO2max (PBVO2max) and another based on physical activity level (PBPA). Physiological and affective variables were measured in each session. The PBVO2max showed lower risk for dropout than the PBPA. An effect size analysis showed higher ratings on the Feeling Scale in the PBVO2max session at the end of exercise. After categorizing participants by fitness (High, Medium, and Low) according to VO2max, significant differences were observed for the training impulse between Low and High fitness categories, indicating PBVO2Max were sensitive in distinguishing levels of fitness. The PBVO2max, compared to PBPA, seems to provide better physiological and affective responses. VO2max (even if estimated) is recommended as the basis for aerobic prescriptions.
Asunto(s)
Afecto/fisiología , Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Ejercicio Físico/psicología , Esfuerzo Físico/fisiología , Adulto , Antropometría/métodos , Brasil , Prueba de Esfuerzo/métodos , Prueba de Esfuerzo/psicología , Femenino , Frecuencia Cardíaca/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Consumo de Oxígeno/fisiología , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento/psicología , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Riesgo , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
The objectives were to propose a new strategy for adjusting aerobic training variables based on the eighth American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines and maximal aerobic power (&OV0312;O2max) and to establish energy expenditure (EE) recommendations for training, which depend on a subject's body mass (BM). Exclusively based on aerobic training recommendations that are available in the ACSM guidelines, 16 equally partitioned subcategories were created from the slope of a linear regression between the lower (16.4 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) and upper (61.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) limits of VO(2max) percentile tables and all aerobic variables (intensity: 30-85%Reserve, duration: 60-300 min·wk(-1), frequency: 3-5 d·wk(-1), and EE: 1,000-4,000 kcal·wk). ACSM's EE (EE(ACSM)) recommendation was compared to EE based on VO(2max) (EE(Actual)), BM, exercise intensity and duration combined, for five BM categories (60 to 100 kg). The following equations were generated to adjust aerobic training: Intensity (%(Reserve)) = VO(2max) (ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) × 1.23 + 9.85, Duration (min·wk(-1)) = VO(2max) × 5.36-27.91, Frequency (d·wk(-1) = VO(2max) × 0.044 + 2.27, EE(ACSM) (kcal·wk(-1)) =VO(2max) × 82.61-1,055.29, and EE(Actual) (kcal·wk(-1)) = ([V(O2max) - 3.5] × Intensity + 3.5) × BM (kg)/200 × Frequency. A comparison of EE(ACSM) and EE(Actual) for 5 BM and 3 aerobic fitness categories demonstrated an effect size classification that is equal or superior to "large" in 9 of 15 comparisons, suggesting that EE(ACSM) adjustment is inadequate at least 60% of the time. Despite the need to verify the adequacy of the linear model and perform future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, the present proposal first provides criteria to adjust aerobic training variables consistent with subject capacity, thus diminishing the risk of the imprecise aerobic prescription.