COMPARISON OF NON-MAXIMAL TESTS FOR ESTIMATING EXERCISE CAPACITY

Although maximal incremental exercise tests (GXT) are the gold standard for outcome assessment and exercise prescription, they are not widely available in either fitness or clinical exercise programs. This study compared the prediction of VO2max in healthy, sedentary volunteers using a non-exercise prediction (Matthews et al., 1999), RPE extrapolation to 19 and 20 and the Rockport Walking Test (RWT), and of ventilatory threshold (VT) using the Talk Test and RPE @ 13,14,15. Subjects performed a treadmill GXT with gas exchange, a submaximal treadmill with RPE and Talk Test, the RWT and Matthews. All methods provided reasonable estimates of both VO2max and VT, with correlations of >0.80 and SEE~1.3 METs. VO2max was best estimated with the extrapolation to RPE=19. VT was intermediate between the TT Last Positive and Equivocal stages and between RPE 13 and 14. Non-maximal evaluation can be used in place of maximal GXT with gas exchange to make reasonable estimates of both VO2max and V

No immediate effects of highly cushioned shoes on basic running biomechanics

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of highly cushioned shoes on running biomechanics. Sixteen recreational runners (8 males, 8 females) participated and ran at a self-selected pace across the force platform in the research laboratory wearing either the standard or highly cushioned shoes, in randomized order. Impact peak (IP), loading rate to IP (LR), active peak (AP), contact time (CT), strike index (SI), running velocity, and knee and ankle kinematics at initial contact (IC) and AP were recorded during the running trials. Overall, there was no effect of footwear on IP, LR, AP, CT and velocity (p>.05) with small effect sizes (ES.05). Our results indicate that the highly cushioned shoes did not show immediate changes in running biomechanics

Workload accomplished in phase III cardiac rehabilitation

Exercise training is an important component of clinical exercise programs. Although there are recognized guidelines for the amount of exercise to be accomplished (≥70,000 steps per week or ≥150 min per week at moderate intensity), there is virtually no documentation of how much exercise is actually accomplished in contemporary exercise programs. Having guidelines without evidence of whether they are being met is of limited value. We analyzed both the weekly step count and the session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) of patients (n = 26) enrolled in a community clinical exercise (e.g., Phase III) program over a 3-week reference period. Step counts averaged 39,818 ± 18,612 per week, with 18% of the steps accomplished in the program and 82% of steps accomplished outside the program. Using the sRPE method, inside the program, the patients averaged 162.4 ± 93.1 min per week, at a sRPE of 12.5 ± 1.9 and a frequency of 1.8 ± 0.7 times per week, for a calculated exercise load of 2042.5 ± 1244.9 AU. Outside the program, the patients averaged 144.9 ± 126.4 min, at a sRPE of 11.8 ± 5.8 and a frequency of 2.4 ± 1.5 times per week, for a calculated exercise load of 1723.9 ± 1526.2 AU. The total exercise load using sRPE was 266.4 ± 170.8 min per week, at a sRPE of 12.6 ± 3.8, and frequency of 4.2 ± 1.1 times per week, for a calculated exercise load of 3359.8 ± 2145.9 AU. There was a non-linear relationship between steps per week and the sRPE derived training load, apparently attributable to the amount of non-walking exercise accomplished in the program. The results suggest that patients in a community clinical exercise program are achieving American College of Sports Medicine guidelines, based on the sRPE method, but are accomplishing less steps than recommended by guidelines

Exercise prescription when there is no exercise test: the talk test

The Talk Test is a subjective measure of exercise intensity which, like RPE, has come to be accepted as an alternative to objective measures (%HRR, %VO2max) for exercise evaluation and prescription. This paper reviews the history and indications for using the Talk Test as a tool for both exercise evaluation and exercise prescription. The Talk Test, in one form or the other, has a long history, dating from at least 1937. It appears to be robust relative to the method of provoking speech and to the exercise mode. In the most widely used version, the subject recites a standard paragraph of 30-100 words, and responds to the question ‘Can you speak comfortably?’ With answers of ‘Yes’ (POSITIVE), ‘Yes, but…’ (EQUIVOCAL), and ‘No” (NEGATIVE), the Talk Test appears to be able to identify exercise intensities closely associated with the ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation (RCT) thresholds, and to bracket subjects into %HRR intensities closely associated with the accepted exercise/training intensity guidelines, without the need for performing a maximal exercise test. The Talk Test appears to work well in a range of populations from college students, healthy adults, elite athletes to patients with chronic diseases. It also seems to be a valid and reliable marker of the presence of exertional ischemia. In a variety of populations, the Talk Test appears capable of being translated into absolute exercise training intensities, on the basis of a commonsense step down sequence. The Talk Test appears to work by allowing detection of when the suppression of breathing frequency, which is necessary for speech, begins to lead to CO2 trapping, which interferes with breathing comfort. Its response to disrupting stimuli such as stochastic exercise, exercise training and blood donation follow predictable patterns. Guiding exercise intensity using the Talk Test instead of %HRR provides comparable responses during exercise training, without the need for an anchoring maximal exercise test. In summary, the Talk Test seems to offer a considerable promise as a means of exercise evaluation and prescription, in a wide variety of exercising individuals, without the need for a preliminary exercise test

Exercise prescription when there is no exercise test: the talk test

The Talk Test is a subjective measure of exercise intensity which, like RPE, has come to be accepted as an alternative to objective measures (%HRR, %VO2max) for exercise evaluation and prescription. This paper reviews the history and indications for using the Talk Test as a tool for both exercise evaluation and exercise prescription. The Talk Test, in one form or the other, has a long history, dating from at least 1937. It appears to be robust relative to the method of provoking speech and to the exercise mode. In the most widely used version, the subject recites a standard paragraph of 30-100 words, and responds to the question ‘Can you speak comfortably?’ With answers of ‘Yes’ (POSITIVE), ‘Yes, but…’ (EQUIVOCAL), and ‘No” (NEGATIVE), the Talk Test appears to be able to identify exercise intensities closely associated with the ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation (RCT) thresholds, and to bracket subjects into %HRR intensities closely associated with the accepted exercise/training intensity guidelines, without the need for performing a maximal exercise test. The Talk Test appears to work well in a range of populations from college students, healthy adults, elite athletes to patients with chronic diseases. It also seems to be a valid and reliable marker of the presence of exertional ischemia. In a variety of populations, the Talk Test appears capable of being translated into absolute exercise training intensities, on the basis of a commonsense step down sequence. The Talk Test appears to work by allowing detection of when the suppression of breathing frequency, which is necessary for speech, begins to lead to CO2 trapping, which interferes with breathing comfort. Its response to disrupting stimuli such as stochastic exercise, exercise training and blood donation follow predictable patterns. Guiding exercise intensity using the Talk Test instead of %HRR provides comparable responses during exercise training, without the need for an anchoring maximal exercise test. In summary, the Talk Test seems to offer a considerable promise as a means of exercise evaluation and prescription, in a wide variety of exercising individuals, without the need for a preliminary exercise test