Maria Urbana Pinto Brandão Rondon et al. Cláudia Lúcia de Moraes Forjaz Newton Nunes Sandra Lia do Amaral … Antonio Carlos Pereira Barretto Carlos Eduardo Negrão
PURPOSE: To compare the lower (LL) and upper limits (UL) of exercise intensity prescription based on standard exercise test (60-70% of estimated VO2max or 70-85% of HRmax measured) with exercise intensity prescription based on cardiopulmonary exercise test [anaerobic threshold (AT) and respiratory compensation point (RCP)]. METHODS: Fourty seven men (30±5 years) who were submitted to a progressive cardiopulmonary exercise test until exhaustion were divided in subgroups according to treadmill speed during exercise test (4 or 5mph) and the physical capacity [lower (LPC) and moderate physical capacity (MPC)]. RESULTS: The LL of the indirect exercise intensity prescription showed VO2 and HR values significantly higher than VO2 and HR values measured at AT (4mph= 34.4±4.5 vs 19.6±4.6 and 5mph= 28.9±2 vs 18.9±5.4, and LPC= 32.0±4.1 vs 17.2±2.8 and MPC= 31.6±4.9 vs 21.1± 5.7mlO2.kg-1.min-1 ) and (4mph= 128.9±7.8 vs 113.1±15.6 and 5mph= 130.3±5.2 vs 114.1±18.9, and LPC= 127.6±7.2 vs 109.3±13.2 and MPC= 131.2±5.7 vs 117.4±19.2bpm) The UL of the indirect exercise intensity prescription in 4mph and LPC group showed VO2 values significantly higher than those measured at RCP (40.1±5.3 vs 32.2±4.3 and 37.4±4.8 vs 30.6±2.5mlO2.kg-1.min-1, respectively), but similar HR values to those obtained at RCP. CONCLUSION: The LL of prescription based on standard exercise test overestimate the AT, whereas the UL seem adequate only for subjects with moderate physical capacity.