Regulating exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion during arm and leg ergometry

• Published in: European journal of applied physiology Vol. 78; no. 3; pp. 241 - 246
• Main Authors: JI KANG, CHALOUPKA, E. C, MASTRANGELO, M. A, DONNELLY, M. S, MARTZ, W. P, ROBERTSON, R. J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin Springer 01.08.1998
• Subjects: Adult; Arm - physiology; Biological and medical sciences; Exercise - physiology; Exercise Test; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Heart Rate - physiology; Humans; Leg - physiology; Male; Oxygen Consumption - physiology; Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports; Physical exercise; Human; Body perception; Intensity; Effort; Lower limb; Upper limb; Arm; Ergometry; Leg
• ISSN: 0301-5548; 1439-6319; 1432-1025; 1439-6327
• DOI: 10.1007/s004210050414

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the validity of regulating exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) during arm crank and leg cycle exercise at 50 and 70% peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak). Ten men and seven women [26 (1) years old; mean (SE)] participated in this study. Each subject completed a maximal estimation trial and two submaximal exercise bouts (production trials) on both an arm and leg ergometer. During each maximal estimation trial, subjects were asked to give a RPE for each stage of the exercise. RPEs, heart rates (HR), and power outputs (PO) equivalent to 50 and 70% VO2peak for each exercise mode were then estimated from plots of RPE versus oxygen consumption (VO2), HR versus VO2, and PO versus VO2, respectively. During the submaximal trials, subjects were instructed to select workloads on an arm and leg ergometer that produced the previously estimated RPEs. Comparisons were made for VO2, HR, and PO between the estimation and production trials for each mode at each exercise intensity. HR did not differ between the trials at either 50 or 70% VO2peak during arm and leg ergometry. In addition, VO2 and PO did not differ between the trials at either 50 or 70% VO2peak during arm ergometry and at 50% VO2peak during leg ergometry. However, these two parameters were lower (P < 0.05) during the production trial [1.88 (0.15) l x min(-1) and 89.1 (10.1) W, respectively] as compared to the estimation trial [2.08(0.14) l x min(-1) and 102.4 (6.5)W, respectively] during leg ergometry at 70% VO2peak. In conclusion, using RPEs to regulate exercise intensity is physiologically valid during arm ergometry at both 50 and 70% VO2peak and during leg ergometry at 50% VO2peak. However, this prescriptive approach remains questionable during leg cycle exercise at 70% VO2peak.