2020
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-020-01322-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Examination and Critique of Current Methods to Determine Exercise Intensity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
169
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 180 publications
(173 citation statements)
references
References 222 publications
4
169
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to safety reasons, the current standardized training programs addressed either to healthy individuals, clinical patients, and athletes require the controversial quantification of the relative exercise intensity (Jamnick et al, 2020). And, accordingly, the use of ergometers and strength machines.…”
Section: Some Hypotheses For Future Applicative Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to safety reasons, the current standardized training programs addressed either to healthy individuals, clinical patients, and athletes require the controversial quantification of the relative exercise intensity (Jamnick et al, 2020). And, accordingly, the use of ergometers and strength machines.…”
Section: Some Hypotheses For Future Applicative Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the only outcome of the test is an approximation of the VȮ2max, based on the distance achieved, without taking cognisance of the average speed maintained during the test, nor the heart rate response throughout the test. Therefore, the utility of the test for programme prescription is limited based on the fact that prescribing intensities as a percentage of VȮ2max is not considered a valid method for exercise prescription on the basis that this leads to substantial heterogenous homeostatic responses both in and across individuals [9]. The utility of the test for evaluating field-sport athletes may also questionable on the basis that no changes of direction are incorporated into the test.…”
Section: Linear Continuous Running Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although first developed in the early 20 th century, and despite nuanced variations in stage gradations and durations, the essence of the test has remained intact for almost 100 years [8]. While the GXT is considered the gold standard, it exhibits several limitations in that it (i) fails to scale, (ii) shows methodological variability, (iii) is costly, (iv) requires substantial expertise, and (v) possibly lacks ecological validity for field-based sports [9]. Based on these limitations the need for valid and reliable field-based testing was borne, leading to the subsequent development of several methodologically grouped tests such as:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, given between-subjects variability in the ranges defining each exercise intensity domain (i.e. moderate, heavy and severe), the fixed-percentage approach do not adequately control the metabolic stimulus during exercise (Iannetta et al, 2020;Jamnick et al, 2020). So, a model that considers the exercise intensity domains for exercise prescription is recommended.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is little evidence, with the exception of critical power (CP) or critical speed (CS), to support the validity of most commonly used methods (i.e., maximal lactate steady state, respiratory compensation point, and second ventilatory threshold) to demarcate the boundary between the heavy and severe-intensity domains (Jamnick et al, 2020;Jones et al, 2019;Galán-Rioja et al, 2020). Identifying this maximal oxidative metabolic rate, represented by CS is very useful so it provides a marker around which exercise intensity can be prescribed (Jones & Vanhatalo, 2017;Poole et al, 2016;Vanhatalo et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%