Robin Faricier, Randi R Keltz, Tim Hartley, Nathan Mackay, Juan M Murias, Ashlay A Huitema, Robert S McKelvie, Neville G Suskin, Daniel A Keir
{"title":"A Protocol to Establish Exercise Intensity Domains for Aerobic Exercise Training in Coronary Artery Disease.","authors":"Robin Faricier, Randi R Keltz, Tim Hartley, Nathan Mackay, Juan M Murias, Ashlay A Huitema, Robert S McKelvie, Neville G Suskin, Daniel A Keir","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Methods: </strong>The SRS protocol included in series: 6-min of cycling at 25-40 W, a ramp-incremental test until task failure (5-15 W·min-1), and, after recovery, 12-min of cycling at ~50-60% of peak ramp PO. On separate days, patients performed three domain-specific constant-PO exercises at 80%θLT (moderate-intensity, MOD), 70% of the difference between θLT and RCP (heavy-intensity, HVY), and 115%RCP (severe-intensity, SEV). Measured V̇O2 for: MOD and HVY were compared to those predicted using either SRS-corrected or uncorrected approaches; and, for SEV, were compared to peak ramp V̇O2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The POs for MOD, HVY, and SEV were 53 ± 27 W, 96 ± 50 W, and 116 ± 56 W, respectively, eliciting V̇O2 of 1012 ± 362 mL·min-1, 1541 ± 638 mL·min-1, and 1944 ± 744 mL·min-1. The SRS-corrected predictions did not differ from measured V̇O2 for MOD (-25 ± 61 mL·min-1; p = 0.201) or HVY (-40 ± 89 mL·min-1; p = 0.208), whereas uncorrected predictions underestimated V̇O2 by -128 ± 72 mL·min-1 (p = 0.002) and -199 ± 99 mL·min-1 (p = 0.001) in MOD and HVY, respectively. Peak V̇O2 from SEV did not differ from the ramp (1906 ± 766 mL·min-1; p = 0.759).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In CAD, the V̇O2-to-PO relationship from incremental exercise must be corrected to prescribe constant intensity training. The SRS protocol is an accurate approach to ensure prescriptive accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003684","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Methods: The SRS protocol included in series: 6-min of cycling at 25-40 W, a ramp-incremental test until task failure (5-15 W·min-1), and, after recovery, 12-min of cycling at ~50-60% of peak ramp PO. On separate days, patients performed three domain-specific constant-PO exercises at 80%θLT (moderate-intensity, MOD), 70% of the difference between θLT and RCP (heavy-intensity, HVY), and 115%RCP (severe-intensity, SEV). Measured V̇O2 for: MOD and HVY were compared to those predicted using either SRS-corrected or uncorrected approaches; and, for SEV, were compared to peak ramp V̇O2.
Results: The POs for MOD, HVY, and SEV were 53 ± 27 W, 96 ± 50 W, and 116 ± 56 W, respectively, eliciting V̇O2 of 1012 ± 362 mL·min-1, 1541 ± 638 mL·min-1, and 1944 ± 744 mL·min-1. The SRS-corrected predictions did not differ from measured V̇O2 for MOD (-25 ± 61 mL·min-1; p = 0.201) or HVY (-40 ± 89 mL·min-1; p = 0.208), whereas uncorrected predictions underestimated V̇O2 by -128 ± 72 mL·min-1 (p = 0.002) and -199 ± 99 mL·min-1 (p = 0.001) in MOD and HVY, respectively. Peak V̇O2 from SEV did not differ from the ramp (1906 ± 766 mL·min-1; p = 0.759).
Conclusions: In CAD, the V̇O2-to-PO relationship from incremental exercise must be corrected to prescribe constant intensity training. The SRS protocol is an accurate approach to ensure prescriptive accuracy.
期刊介绍:
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.