Is Perceived Exertion an Useful Indicator of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Response to Metabolic Conditioning of Functional-Fitness Session? A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess if self-regulation of intensity based on rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is a reliable method to control the intensity of metabolic conditioning of functional-fitness session. In addition, the relationship between RPE and changes in heart rate and lactate responses was also analyzed. Eight male participants (age 28.1 ± 5.4 years; body mass 77.2 ± 4.4kg; VO2max: 52.6 ± 4.6 mL·(kg·min)−1) completed three randomly sessions (5 to 7 days apart) under different conditions: (1) all-out (ALL); (2) self-regulation of intensity based on a RPE of 6 (hard) on the Borg CR-10 scale (RPE6); and (3) a control session. Rate of perceived exertion, LAC and HR response were measured pre, during and immediately after the sessions. The RPE and LAC during the ALL-OUT sessions were higher (p ≤ 0.05) than the RPE6 and control sessions for all the analyzed time points during the sessions. Regarding HR, the 22 min area under the curve of HR during ALL-OUT and RPE6 sessions were significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) than the control session. The average number of repetitions was lower (p ≤ 0.05) for the RPE6 session (190.5 ± 12.5 repetitions) when compared to the ALL session (214.4 ± 18.6 repetitions). There was a significant correlation between RPE and LAC (p = 0.001; r = 0.76; very large) and number of repetitions during the session (p = 0.026; r = 0.55; large). No correlation was observed between RPE and HR (p = 0.147; r = 0.380). These results indicate that self-regulation of intensity of effort based on RPE may be a useful tool to control exercise intensity during a metabolic conditioning session of functional-fitness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".