1
SRCC poster template provided by Instructional Resources and Office of Undergraduate Research How Do Individuals Perceive Aerobic Exercise Intensity? Robert Nickels, Exercise Physiology Kristofer Wisniewski, PhD, ACSM-CEP, EIM-III, Department of Exercise Physiology The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) classifies different exercise intensities through ranges of heart rate, oxygen consumption, rating of perceived exertion, and the metabolic needs of the activity. Currently, there are no studies examining if individuals perceive the exercise intensity level as it is defined by these physiological and perceptual ranges. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine if individuals perceive aerobic exercise intensities as they are defined by the ACSM. Methods: 5 total subjects (males, n=2; females, n=3) participated in this study. Subjects completed a graded exercise test to maximal exertion while rating the intensity during each stage of the test. Subjects used a Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) Scale with the following categories: 1-Very Light, 2-Light, 3- Moderate, 4-Vigorous, 5-Near Maximal, and 6-Maximal. Results: Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined using %VO 2 R at the end of each stage. The PIL rated at the end of each stage was compared against the AIL. Results: A contingency table assessed agreement between PIL and AIL. Cohen’s Kappa (Κ) showed the strength of the agreement between PIL and AIL was strong ( Κ = 0.722). Significance: It is recommended that adults participate in moderate and vigorous aerobic exercise for several health- related benefits. These results may help to enhance the prescription of self-regulating exercise intensity in fitness programs where individuals prefer to use subjective methods to self-regulate their aerobic intensity. Purpose Background/Introduction Abstract American College of Sports Medicine. (2010). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (8th ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 5). American College of Sports Medicine. (2014). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (9th ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 165). Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E., & Petruzzello, S. (2005) Some Like It Vigorous: Measuring Individual Differences in the Preference for and Tolerance of Exercise Intensity. J Sport Exerc Psych. 27, 350-374. Johnson, J. H. & Phipps, L., K. (2006). Preferred method of selecting exercise intensity in adult women. J Strength Cond Res, 20(2), 446-449 Norton, K. , Norton, L. , & Sadgrove, D. (2010). Position statement on physical activity and exercise intensity terminology. J Sci Med Sport. 13. 496-502. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, D.C. Wisniewski, K. (2012). Validation of OMNI RPE and Preferred Method of Regulating Exercise intensity in Obese Adults (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3533041). References Results Cohen’s Kappa = 0.722 Conclusions/Recommendations ACSM guidelines state individuals should exercise at a moderate and/or vigorous intensity for health-fitness benefits. Subjects in this study showed a strong agreement ( Κ = 0.722) in their PIL compared to the AIL. Results may help enhance prescription for individuals who prefer to use subjective methods to self-regulate their aerobic exercise intensity. Future research: examine the agreement in individuals who vary in training status: sedentary vs. physically active vs. elite athletes effect of providing a definition of each intensity level on the agreement Methods The ACSM and AHA recommend that healthy adults accumulate at least: - 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic exercise - 75 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic exercise - Or a combination of both - The ACSM defines moderate intensity as 40% to < 60% VO 2 R that noticeably increases HR and breathing, and vigorous intensity as ≥ 60% VO 2 R that substantially increases HR and breathing. - Public health guidelines state individuals should perform aerobic exercise at either a moderate or vigorous intensity. However, it is unknown if individuals accurately perceive moderate intensity as moderate, or vigorous intensity as vigorous. This question has important implications for exercise intensity self-regulation in health-fitness programming. The purpose of this study is to determine if individuals perceive aerobic exercise intensities as they are defined by the ACSM. 1. Very Light 2. Light 3. Moderate 4. Vigorous 5. Near Maximal 6. Maximal Age (yrs) Height (cm) Weight (kg) BMI (kg∙m -2 ) Body Fat (%) VO 2peak (ml∙kg -1 ∙min -1 ) n = 5 20.4 ± 1.8 172.4 ± 15.4 74.4 ± 16.6 24.8 ± 3.1 25.5 ± 11.1 45.2 ± 9.5 Table 1. Subject Characteristics (mean ± SD) Exercise Trial Subjects’ height and weight were measured before testing. Subjects’ body composition was measured via Bod Pod testing. Subjects performed a graded treadmill exercise test until maximal effort. Initial treadmill speed was 1.5 mph. Speed and grade were increased every 3 minutes. HR (b∙min -1 ) and VO 2 (l∙min -1 ) were recorded every minute. Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) was assessed at the end of each 3 minute stage using the PIL Scale (Figure 1). PIL Scale instructions were read to all 5 participants (males, n = 2; females, n = 3) prior to completing the exercise trial. Data Analysis Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined for the final minute of each stage and compared with the PIL for each stage. Determination of AIL: %VO 2 R = (VO 2 R - VO 2rest ) / (VO 2peak VO 2rest ) x 100 < 30 % VO 2 R Very Light 30 to < 40 % VO 2 R Light 40 to < 60 % VO 2 R Moderate 60 to < 90 % VO 2 R Vigorous ≥ 90 % VO 2 R Near Maximal / Maximal Near Maximal and Maximal PIL Scale responses were reduced to 1 category (Near Maximal / Maximal) Fig 1. PIL Scale Table 2. PIL vs. AIL Contingency Table Comparisons between AIL and PIL were undertaken using a contingency table. Each stage completed served as a data point. Total data points = 27 Agreement between AIL and PIL was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (Κ). Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS, Version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Methods Cont’d.

Nickels & Wisniewski - Research Poster

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Nickels & Wisniewski - Research Poster

SR

CC

po

ste

r te

mp

late

pro

vid

ed

by In

stru

ctio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

an

d O

ffic

e o

f U

nd

erg

rad

ua

te R

ese

arc

h

How Do Individuals Perceive Aerobic Exercise Intensity?Robert Nickels, Exercise Physiology

Kristofer Wisniewski, PhD, ACSM-CEP, EIM-III, Department of Exercise Physiology

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) classifies

different exercise intensities through ranges of heart rate,

oxygen consumption, rating of perceived exertion, and the

metabolic needs of the activity. Currently, there are no

studies examining if individuals perceive the exercise

intensity level as it is defined by these physiological and

perceptual ranges. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to

determine if individuals perceive aerobic exercise intensities

as they are defined by the ACSM. Methods: 5 total subjects

(males, n=2; females, n=3) participated in this study.

Subjects completed a graded exercise test to maximal

exertion while rating the intensity during each stage of the

test. Subjects used a Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) Scale

with the following categories: 1-Very Light, 2-Light, 3-

Moderate, 4-Vigorous, 5-Near Maximal, and 6-Maximal.

Results: Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined using

%VO2R at the end of each stage. The PIL rated at the end

of each stage was compared against the AIL. Results: A

contingency table assessed agreement between PIL and

AIL. Cohen’s Kappa (Κ) showed the strength of the

agreement between PIL and AIL was strong (Κ = 0.722).

Significance: It is recommended that adults participate in

moderate and vigorous aerobic exercise for several health-

related benefits. These results may help to enhance the

prescription of self-regulating exercise intensity in fitness

programs where individuals prefer to use subjective methods

to self-regulate their aerobic intensity.

Purpose

Background/Introduction

Abstract

American College of Sports Medicine. (2010). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (8th

ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 5).

American College of Sports Medicine. (2014). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (9th

ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 165).

Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E., & Petruzzello, S. (2005) Some Like It Vigorous: Measuring Individual Differences in the

Preference for and Tolerance of Exercise Intensity. J Sport Exerc Psych. 27, 350-374.

Johnson, J. H. & Phipps, L., K. (2006). Preferred method of selecting exercise intensity in adult women. J

Strength Cond Res, 20(2), 446-449

Norton, K. , Norton, L. , & Sadgrove, D. (2010). Position statement on physical activity and exercise intensity

terminology. J Sci Med Sport. 13. 496-502.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

Washington, D.C.

Wisniewski, K. (2012). Validation of OMNI RPE and Preferred Method of Regulating Exercise intensity in Obese

Adults (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3533041).

References

Results

Cohen’s Kappa = 0.722

Conclusions/Recommendations ACSM guidelines state individuals should exercise at a

moderate and/or vigorous intensity for health-fitness benefits.

Subjects in this study showed a strong agreement (Κ = 0.722)

in their PIL compared to the AIL.

Results may help enhance prescription for individuals who

prefer to use subjective methods to self-regulate their aerobic

exercise intensity.

Future research:

◦ examine the agreement in individuals who vary in training status:

sedentary vs. physically active vs. elite athletes

◦ effect of providing a definition of each intensity level on the

agreement

Methods

• The ACSM and AHA recommend that healthy adults

accumulate at least:

- 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic exercise

- 75 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic exercise

- Or a combination of both

- The ACSM defines moderate intensity as 40% to < 60%

VO2R that noticeably increases HR and breathing, and

vigorous intensity as ≥ 60% VO2R that substantially

increases HR and breathing.

- Public health guidelines state individuals should perform

aerobic exercise at either a moderate or vigorous

intensity. However, it is unknown if individuals accurately

perceive moderate intensity as moderate, or vigorous

intensity as vigorous. This question has important

implications for exercise intensity self-regulation in

health-fitness programming.

The purpose of this study is to determine if individuals perceive aerobic

exercise intensities as they are defined by the ACSM.

1. Very Light

2. Light

3. Moderate

4. Vigorous

5. Near Maximal

6. Maximal

Age

(yrs)

Height

(cm)

Weight

(kg)

BMI

(kg∙m-2)

Body Fat

(%)

VO2peak

(ml∙kg-1∙min-1)

n = 5 20.4 ± 1.8 172.4 ± 15.4 74.4 ± 16.6 24.8 ± 3.1 25.5 ± 11.1 45.2 ± 9.5

Table 1. Subject Characteristics (mean ± SD)

Exercise Trial

• Subjects’ height and weight were measured before testing.

• Subjects’ body composition was measured via Bod Pod testing.

• Subjects performed a graded treadmill exercise test until maximal effort.

• Initial treadmill speed was 1.5 mph.

• Speed and grade were increased every 3 minutes.

• HR (b∙min-1) and VO2 (l∙min-1) were recorded every minute.

• Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) was assessed at the end of each 3 minute

stage using the PIL Scale (Figure 1).

• PIL Scale instructions were read to all 5 participants (males, n = 2;

females, n = 3) prior to completing the exercise trial.

Data Analysis

• Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined for the final minute of each

stage and compared with the PIL for each stage.

• Determination of AIL:

• %VO2R = (VO2R - VO2rest) / (VO2peak – VO2rest) x 100

• < 30 % VO2R Very Light

• 30 to < 40 % VO2R Light

• 40 to < 60 % VO2R Moderate

• 60 to < 90 % VO2R Vigorous

• ≥ 90 % VO2R Near Maximal / Maximal

• Near Maximal and Maximal PIL Scale responses were reduced to 1

category (Near Maximal / Maximal)

Fig 1. PIL Scale

Table 2. PIL vs. AIL Contingency Table

• Comparisons between AIL and PIL were undertaken using a

contingency table.

• Each stage completed served as a data point.

• Total data points = 27

• Agreement between AIL and PIL was assessed using

Cohen’s Kappa (Κ).

• Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS, Version 22.0

(IBM, Armonk, NY).

Methods Cont’d.