These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of the impacts of continuous and interval cycle exercise on perceived exertion.
    Author: Kilpatrick MW, Greeley SJ, Ferron JM.
    Journal: Eur J Sport Sci; 2016; 16(2):221-8. PubMed ID: 25773871.
    Abstract:
    Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were developed to assess exertion during exercise testing. However, assessments of RPE prior to and after exercise have become common and potentially important in understanding exercise behaviour. The purpose of this project was to compare RPE taken before, during and after interval and continuous exercise sessions. Twenty-four participants (12 men, 12 women, body mass index = 24, VO2peak = 41 mL · kg · min(-1)) completed a maximal cycle ergometer test used to prescribe experimental trials: (1) moderate continuous (MC), (2) vigorous continuous (VC), (3) vigorous interval and (4) severe interval. All trials were 20 minutes in length and all intervals utilised 60-second segments and a 1:1 work-to-rest ratio. Predicted exertion was highest in the continuous vigorous trial (p < .05). Exertion increased from beginning to end in all trials (p < .05). Session RPE values were highest for the continuous vigorous trial (p < .05). Findings suggest that interval protocols produce perceptions of effort that are lower than VC exercise but similar to MC exercise. These results help describe the perceptions of effort associated with continuous and interval exercise and suggest that interval exercise can be performed with lower perceived work, which may encourage increased participation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]