Home > Riviste > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Fascicoli precedenti > 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

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi PROMO
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti
Permessi
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

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

Copyright © 2000 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

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


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.

inizio pagina