Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3):207-12

CURRENT ISSUETHE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3):207-12

language: English

The valid­ity of rat­ings of per­ceived exer­tion for ­cross-­modal reg­u­la­tion of swim­ming inten­sity

Green J. M., Michael T., Solomon A. H.

Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Safety, Middle Tennessee State University, Memphis, USA


PDF  REPRINTS


Background. This ­study exam­ined the use of Borg’s cat­e­go­ry Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) ­scale for pre­scrib­ing and ­self-reg­u­lat­ing swim­ming inten­sity. Subjects ­were ­males and ­females (n=l9) ­ages nine­teen to fif­ty-­eight who reg­u­lar­ly ­swam for fit­ness.
Experimental ­designs. Sub­jects com­plet­ed six ­trials. Each ­trial was sep­ar­at­ed by a min­i­mum of for­ty-­eight ­hours. Mean ­cycle ergom­e­try ­heart ­rates at esti­mat­ed RPE-over­all 12 and 16 ­were com­pared to ­mean swim­ming ­heart ­rates at pro­duced RPE-over­all 12 and 16. Also, ­mean arm ergom­e­try ­heart ­rates at esti­mat­ed RPE-­arms 12 and 16 ­were com­pared to ­mean swim­ming ­heart ­rates at pro­duced RPE-­arms 12 and 16. Cycling and arm ergom­e­try ­anchor ­trials famil­iar­ized sub­jects ­with test­ing pro­to­col and Borg’s ­scale ­prior to esti­ma­tion and pro­duc­tion ­trials. Comparisons ­were ­made ­using a one-way ANO­VA (­alpha 0.05).
Results. Mean ­cycling ­heart ­rate at RPE-over­all 16 was not sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent ­from ­mean swim­ming ­heart ­rate at RPE-over­all 16. Mean swim­ming ­heart ­rate was sig­nif­i­cant­ly great­er ­than ­cycling ­heart ­rate at RPE-over­all 12. Mean swim­ming ­heart ­rates at RPE-­arms 12 and 16 ­were sig­nif­i­cant­ly great­er ­than arm ergom­e­try ­heart ­rates at RPE-­arms 12 and 16.
Conclusions. Results sug­gest ­that RPE-over­all 16 may be use­ful in pre­scrib­ing a high­er exer­cise inten­sity for swim­mers. However, adjust­ments ­from RPE-over­all 12 are need­ed for estab­lish­ing a low­er inten­sity. Additionally, arm ergom­e­try-­based RPEs may ­require adjust­ments to be effec­tive in pre­scrib­ing and reg­u­lat­ing swim­ming inten­sity. Results sug­gest ­that ­cycling and arm ergom­e­try ­anchored RPE respons­es ­should be ­used ­with dis­cre­tion ­when pre­scrib­ing and reg­u­lat­ing swim­ming inten­sity.

top of page