Abstract des Autors

The purpose of this investigation was to compare run-prescription by heart rate (HR) vs. rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during 6 weeks to determine which is superior for consistent achievement of target intensities and improved performance. Forty untrained men participated in this laboratory-controlled and field-controlled trial. Participants were divided into heart rate (HRTG) and rating of perceived exertion training groups (RPETG). All underwent maximal-graded exercise testing and a 12-minute run test before and after training. Intensity was prescribed as either a target HR or RPE that corresponded to 4 relative intensity levels: 45, 60, 75, and 90% V[Combining Dot Above]O2 reserve (V[Combining Dot Above]O2R). Mean exercise intensity over the 6 weeks did not differ between HRTG (65.6 ± 7.2%HRR) and RPETG (61.9 ± 9.0%HRR). V[Combining Dot Above]O2max (+4.1 ± 2.5 ml•kg−1•min−1) and 12 minutes run distance (+240.1 ± 150.1 m) improved similarly in HRTG and RPETG (p > 0.05). HRTG displayed lower coefficients of variation (CV) (5.9 ± 4.1%, 3.3 ± 3.8%, and 3.0 ± 2.2%) and %error (4.1 ± 4.7%, 2.3 ± 4.1% and 2.6 ± 3.2%) at 45, 60, and 75% V[Combining Dot Above]O2R compared with RPETG (CV 11.1 ± 5.0%, 7.7 ± 4.1% and 5.6 ± 3.2%; all p < 0.005) %error (15.7 ± 9.2%, 10.6 ± 9.2% and 6.7 ± 3.2%; all p < 0.001), respectively. Overall, HR-prescribed and RPE-prescribed run-training resulted in similar exercise intensity and performance outcomes over 6 weeks. Differences in the CV and %error suggest use of HR monitoring for individuals that are new to running as it improves precision and accuracy but does not increase performance improvements across 6 weeks.