Relationship Between Aerobic Prescription Methods

Healthy Clinical Trial

Official title:

Relationship Between Methods of Aerobic Prescription: Heart Rate vs. VO2 Load vs. Self Selected

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02660450
• Other study ID #: UNIG 02
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• First received: January 4, 2016
• Last updated: January 17, 2016
• Start date: February 2016
• Est. completion date: July 2016

Study information

• Verified date: January 2016
• Source: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
• Contact: Sérgio Machado, PhD
• Phone: 55 21 991567006
• Email: secm80[@]gmail.com
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: Brazil: National Committee of Ethics in Research
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Current literature report 3 ways to prescribe and control aerobic training. Such models require comparison to determine if they really provide the same impact training in a prescription. The aim of this study is to compare the results of different methods of prescription of aerobic training, ie VO2 workload, heart rate (HR), and load self adjusted by perceived effort (PSE) as well as psychological responses activation, and feel depending on the stimuli offered.

Description:

36 subjects will undergo two sessions. On the first visit, a maximum aerobic exercise test will be carried on treadmill to determine the maximum oxygen intake and maximum heart rate. Second, the subjects are placed (in a blinded fashion) in 3 situations of moderate effort (60 to 65%) for a total of 5 min and 3 min interval between conditions. In situation 1) will be used to speed regarding the particular metabolic demand from the maximum oxygen intake; In the second situation the reserve of heart rate will be used as reference for prescription aiming to achieve 60-65%; On the last visit will be shown to subjects a perceived effort characterized as moderate and asked to adjust their speed according to the application effort. The final will be recorded each time the FC and the speed and perception of effort that the subject was.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 36
• Est. completion date: July 2016
• Est. primary completion date: April 2016
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years to 45 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• 18 at 45 years

• Risk stratification low

• Physically active by American College of Sports Medicine criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

• Use of ergogenic resources

• Use of sympatholytic drugs

• Use of stimulants

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Open Label

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Healthy

Intervention

Other:
• Prescription for Workload
Prescription from 65% VO2max for 5 min of exercise
• Prescription for Heart Rate
Prescription from 60 - 65% Maximum Heart Rate for 5 min of exercise
• Prescription Self Selected
Prescription Self Selected from Perceived exertion at 3 - 4 (moderate) for 5 min of exercise

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Response of Heart Rate and perceived Effort through prescriptions for oxygen uptake		Acute Change in 5 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise	No
Primary	Response of Heart Rate through prescriptions for self selected workload based in perceived effort		Acute Change in 5 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise	No
Primary	Response of velocity and Perceived Effort through Prescription of Heart Rate		Acute Change in 5 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise	No