Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The validity of regulating exercise intensity by ratings of perceived exertion

DUNBAR, CHRISTOPHER C., ROBERTSON, ROBERT J., BAUN, RANDY, BLANDIN, MICHELLE F., METZ, KENNETH, BURDETT, RAY, GOSS, FREDRIC L.·1992·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the regulation of exercise intensity by using Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE). The RPE equivalent to 50% and 70% VO2max was estimated by using standard clinical protocols on a treadmill and cycle ergometer. Subjects then produced the target RPEs on these modalities. Physiological validity of perceptually regulated exercise intensity was determined by comparing VO2 and heart rate between estimation and production trials at the same relative intensity. With one exception, RPE was found to be a valid means of regulating exercise intensity both intra- and intermodally at 50% and 70% VO2max. Perceptual regulation of intramodal treadmill exercise was not valid at 70% VO2max in that both VO2 and heart rate were significantly lower during production than estimation. The present results also indicate that target RPE estimated during a cycle ergometer graded exercise test is more accurate for regulating exercise intensity than when the target RPE is estimated during a treadmill test. The lower accuracy found for treadmill production at the higher exercise intensity may have been caused by the use of a test protocol during the estimation trial that included relatively slow speeds and large inclines. In general, RPE provide a physiologically valid method of regulating exercise intensity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/00005768-199201000-00016

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
DUNBAR, C. C., ROBERTSON, R. J., BAUN, R., BLANDIN, M. F., METZ, K., BURDETT, R., & GOSS, F. L.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
1992-01
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
94???99
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990236957
Cited by
281
References
0
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.