Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2014; 35(05): 379-384
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1353166
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A Learning Protocol Improves the Validity of the Borg 6–20 RPE Scale During Indoor Cycling

A. Soriano-Maldonado   *
1   Department of Medical Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain
2   Department of Physical Education and Sport, School of Sports Sciences, University of Granada, Spain
,
L. Romero   *
1   Department of Medical Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain
,
P. Femia
3   Department of Statistics and Operative Research, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain
,
C. Roero
1   Department of Medical Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain
,
J. R. Ruiz
2   Department of Physical Education and Sport, School of Sports Sciences, University of Granada, Spain
4   Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Unit for Preventive Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden
,
A. Gutierrez
1   Department of Medical Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 10 July 2013

Publication Date:
28 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The present study assessed the effectiveness of an RPE learning protocol for improving the validity of the Borg 6–20 RPE scale for self-regulating exercise intensity during Indoor Cycling (IC). 16 healthy adults performed 5 IC sessions. Heart rate (HR) was continuously monitored. In sessions 1 and 5, participants perceptually regulated exercise intensity to produce pre-determined RPE levels equivalent to estimated HR levels. Sessions 2, 3 and 4 focused on the RPE learning protocol. The RPE-measured HR correlation was 0.59 in session 1 and 0.67 in session 5 (both P<0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between measured HR and estimated HR was 0.85 in session 1 and 0.90 in session 5. There was bias in session 1 (3.69 bpm [SD=12.44]; P<0.001) but not in session 5 (0.99 bpm [SD=9.7]; P=0.178; mean HR difference session 5 vs. 1: −2.70 bpm [95% CI: −4.49 to −0.91]; P=0.003; Cohen’s d=0.24). There was association between the HR difference and the magnitude of the measurement in session 1 (β=0.208; P<0.01) but not in session 5 (β=−0.072; P=0.34). These preliminary results suggested that an RPE learning protocol might slightly improve the validity of the Borg 6–20 RPE scale for exercise intensity self-regulation during IC sessions in healthy adults.

Key words

spinning - exercise prescription - rating of perceived exertion - heart rate - production RPE paradigm - agreement between measurement methods

* A. Soriano-Maldonado and L. Romero contributed equally.


 

  • References

  • 1 Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in Medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. J Roy Stat Soc Ser D 1983; 32: 307-317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: Why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995; 346: 1085-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Buckley JP, Eston RG, Sim J. Ratings of perceived exertion in braille: Validity and reliabity in production mode. Br J Sports Med 2000; 34: 297-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen MJ, Fan X, Moe ST. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 2002; 20: 873-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Coquart JBJ, Legrand R, Robin S, Duhamel A, Matran R, Garcin M. Influence of successive bouts of fatiguing exercise on perceptual and physiological markers during an incremental exercise test. Psychophysiology 2009; 46: 209-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dunbar CC, Kalinski MI. Using RPE to regulate exercise intensity during a 20-week training program for postmenopausal women: A pilot study. Percept Mot Skills 2004; 99: 688-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Eston R, Lambrick D, Sheppard K, Parfitt G. Prediction of maximal oxygen uptake in sedentary males from a perceptually regulated, sub-maximal graded exercise test. J Sports Sci 2008; 26: 131-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Eston RG, Davies BL, Williams JG. Use of perceived effort ratings to control exercise intensity in young healthy adults. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1987; 56: 222-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Eston RG, Faulkner JA, Mason EA, Parfitt G. The validity of predicting maximal oxygen uptake from perceptually regulated graded exercise tests of different durations. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 97: 535-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eston RG, Lamb KL, Parfitt G, King N. The validity of predicting maximal oxygen uptake from a perceptually-regulated graded exercise test. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005; 94: 221-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eston RG, Williams JG. Reliability of ratings of perceived effort regulation of exercise intensity. Br J Sports Med 1988; 22: 153-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Faulkner J, Eston R. Overall and peripheral ratings of perceived exertion during a graded exercise test to volitional exhaustion in individuals of high and low fitness. Eur J Appl Physiol 2007; 101: 613-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee I-, Nieman DC, Swain DP. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43: 1334-1359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Garcin M, Fleury A, Mille-Hamard L, Billat V. Sex-related differences in ratings of perceived exertion and estimated time limit. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 675-681
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Green JM, McLester JR, Crews TR, Wickwire PJ, Pritchett RC, Lomax RG. RPE Association with Lactate and Heart Rate during High-Intensity Interval Cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 167-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johnny G. Spinning® Instructor Manual. Phase 1: The Spinning® Journey 1.01. Givisiez, Switzerland: Schwinn Fitness International; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kang J, Chaloupka EC, Mastrangelo MA, Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, O’Connor E. Metabolic and perceptual responses during spinning® cycle exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 853-859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lambrick DM, Faulkner JA, Rowlands AV, Eston RG. Prediction of maximal oxygen uptake from submaximal ratings of perceived exertion and heart rate during a continuous exercise test: The efficacy of RPE 13. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 107: 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 López-Miñarro PA, Muyor Rodríguez JM. Heart rate and overall ratings of perceived exertion during Spinning® cycle indoor session in novice adults. Sci Sports 2010; 25: 238-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Meth Ecol Evol 2013; 4: 133-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Noble B, Robertson R. Perceived exertion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Parfitt G, Evans H, Eston R. Perceptually Regulated Training at RPE13 Is Pleasant and Improves Physical Health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: 1613-1618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Purvis JW, Cureton KJ. Ratings of perceived exertion at the anaerobic threshold. Ergonomics 1981; 24: 295-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Robertson RJ, Moyna NM, Sward KL, Millich NB, Goss FL, Thompson PD. Gender comparison of RPE at absolute and relative physiological criteria. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 2120-2129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, Pressler A, Wagenpfeil S, Halle M. Associations between Borg's rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013; 113: 147-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Swain DP, Franklin BA. Comparison of cardioprotective benefits of vigorous versus moderate intensity aerobic exercise. Am J Cardiol 2006; 97: 141-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 153-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zou GY. Exact confidence interval for Cohen’s effect size is readily available. Stat Med 2007; 26: 3054-3056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar