A quasi-experimental study on the energy expenditure, exercise intensity, and rating of perceived exertion of a male bodybuilding posing training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the intensity of posing training in male bodybuilders by comparing it to vigorous intensity parameters and examining the effects of stimulant usage and preparation phases. Specifically, this study compared posing training to established vigorous intensity benchmarks using metabolic equivalents (METs) and heart rate (HR) responses and assessed differences between athletes using stimulants versus those not using stimulants, as well as during peak week versus other preparation phases. Fifteen male bodybuilding athletes (mean age: 32.07 ± 7.82 years; mean body mass: 92.89 ± 9.06 kg; mean height: 1.76 ± 0.05 m; mean body mass index: 29.78 ± 2.24 kg/m²) completed four compulsory posing sets. Findings demonstrated that posing training can be classified as vigorous training intensity using METs (mean difference of −0.50 METs, p = 0.067, ES = −0.51) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to the established values of 6.0 METs and 77% vigorous intensity of %HRmax, respectively. Additionally, athletes using stimulants exhibited higher ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) of 2.20 arbitrary units ( p = 0.008) and maximum HR (mean difference of 24.37 bpm, p = 0.005, ES = 0.79) compared to those not using stimulants. During peak week, athletes showed higher RPE of 2.38 arbitrary units ( p = 0.004) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to other preparation phases. These results indicate that bodybuilding posing training meets the criteria for vigorous exercise intensity and that stimulant use and peak week significantly affect physiological responses and perceived exertion. Novelty This study is novel in classifying bodybuilding posing training as vigorous intensity exercise using metabolic equivalents (METs) and heart rate (HR) responses. It provides empirical evidence showing that posing training meets the vigorous intensity benchmarks, with METs and %HRmax values comparable to established vigorous exercise standards. The research highlights the novel finding that stimulant usage and the peak week phase of preparation significantly influence physiological responses and perceived exertion in bodybuilders. Specifically, athletes using stimulants and those in peak week displayed higher ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and maximum heart rates, indicating that these factors notably affect the intensity and perceived difficulty of posing training.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".