Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2005 March;45(1) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2005 March;45(1):20-5

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE 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 1,215


eTOC

 

Original articles  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2005 March;45(1):20-5

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Self-regulated running using perceived exertion in children

Groslambert A. 1, 2, Monnier Benoit P. 1, 2, Grange C. C. 1, 2, Rouillon J. D. 1

1 Laboratory of Sport Sciences UFRSTAPS, Besançon, France 2 Laboratory of Applied Mechanics R. Chaléat UMR 6604 CNRS, Besançon, France


PDF  


Aim. The aim of ­this ­study was to exam­ine the abil­ity of 5- to 7-­year-old ­female (n=16) and ­male (n=16) chil­dren to use per­ceived exer­tion in ­order to ­self-reg­u­late ­their run­ning inten­sity. An esti­ma­tion-pro­duc­tion par­a­digm was ­used to deter­mine if 1) ­self-reg­u­la­tion of exer­cise ­using ­OMNI Scale ­could be admin­is­tered in ­young chil­dren, 2) chil­dren ­were ­able to dis­tin­guish 3 dif­fer­ent inter­mit­tent exer­cise inten­sities and 3) gen­der ­would dif­fer­en­tiate the use of per­ceived exer­tion.
Methods. Children under­went 1) 1 esti­ma­tion ­trial and 2) 3 pro­duc­tion ­trials. During the esti­ma­tion ­trial, per­ceived exer­tion was esti­mat­ed at the end of ­each ­stage of an incre­men­tal run­ning ­field ­test. Then, dur­ing the pro­duc­tion ­test, the chil­dren ­were request­ed to run in ran­dom ­order 300 m ­bouts on an out­door ­track at an exer­cise inten­sity ­based on ­their inter­pre­ta­tion of lev­els 2, 6 and 10 of the ­OMNI Scale. Heart ­rate was con­tin­u­ous­ly record­ed dur­ing ­both ­trials.
Results. Heart ­rate did not dif­fer sig­nif­i­cant­ly ­between esti­ma­tion and pro­duc­tion ­trials at the lev­el 2 (124.1 SD 6 vs 125.3 SD 4 bpm), 6 (164.9 SD 5 vs 166.2 SD 6 bpm) and 10 (200.9 SD 8 vs 203.1 SD 8) of the ­OMNI ­scale. Furthermore, HR respons­es at ­OMNI 6 ­were sig­nif­i­cant­ly (p<0.05) high­er ­than ­OMNI 2, and ­OMNI 10 ­were sig­nif­i­cant­ly (p<0.05) high­er ­that ­OMNI 6. No sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence was ­found ­between ­female and ­male chil­dren.
Conclusion. The ­present inves­ti­ga­tion sup­ports the ­view ­that the ­young ­female and ­male chil­dren test­ed in ­this ­study ­were ­able to use per­ceived exer­tion to ­self-reg­u­late dur­ing inter­mit­tent run­ning exer­cis­es.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail