Questioning the Use of Heart Rate and Dyspnea in the Prescription of Exercise in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the heart rate and dyspnea responses during constant submaximal lower limb endurance exercise in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to determine the appropriateness of using target heart rate or dyspnea for the prescription of endurance exercise intensity. METHODS: The study participants were 15 men, ages 55 to 75 years, with stable moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 38.7 +/- 15.6% pred). All the participants completed the incremental shuttle walking test (ISWT) to estimate peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)), followed by the endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT) at an intensity equivalent to 60% VO(2peak). Heart rate and dyspnea were monitored before, immediately after, and at 1-minute intervals during each test. RESULTS: The study was completed by 11 subjects. Heart rate and dyspnea increased significantly between 4.5 and 20 minutes during the ESWT (P <.01) despite walking at a constant submaximal workload. Heart rate and dyspnea attained at the end of the ESWT exceeded levels observed during the ISWT at the equivalent workload (P <.05). Four subjects were unable to walk for at least 10 minutes on the ESWT because of severe dyspnea and were withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS: Setting heart rate and dyspnea targets for endurance training at an intensity equivalent to 60% VO(2peak) may be inappropriate for subjects with moderate to severe COPD because heart rate and dyspnea increase independently of workload at this intensity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".