Fernando Fábio Bucheleit
Fernando Fábio Bucheleit
Fernando Fábio Bucheleit
Fábio Yuzo Nakamura 1, Nilo Massaru Okuno 1, Luiz Augusto Buoro Perandini 1,
1
Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, PR, Brazil.
2
Universidade Federal de Lavras
3
Picardie Jules Verne University, Amiens, France.
4
Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Objective. – The aim of this study was to provide concurrent validity evidences to perceived
exertion threshold (PET) by comparing and establishing relationships with aerobic function
Methods. – Eleven male college students performed one incremental test to determine first
and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2, respectively), maximal oxygen uptake
( ), and maximal aerobic power (MAP); four predictive trials for the critical power
Results. – Oxygen consumption ( ) at VT1 and VT2 were 22.9 ± 4.2 and 35.8 ± 4.7 ml.kg-
1
.min-1, respectively. The mean was 40.3 ± 6.3 ml.kg-1.min-1. The PET (146 ± 31 W)
and CP (146 ± 33 W) did not differ from each other, and both estimates were between VT1
(121 ± 28 W) and VT2 (228 ± 36 W). Furthermore, all these submaximal indexes were lower
than MAP (278 ± 33 W). The correlations between PET and CP, expressed in relative terms
to body mass was r = 0.84. The correlations between PET and relative at VT1 (r = 0.76),
Conclusion. – PET did not significantly differ from CP, and presented moderate correlations
with VT1, VT2 and derived from incremental test. Thus, it can be considered a valid
oxygen uptake.
Résumé
Objectifs. – Le but de cette étude était de démontrer la validité du seuil de pénibilité perçue à
l’effort (PET) à partir de relations avec des repères physiologiques caractérisant la fonction
Méthodes. – Onze étudiants masculins ont effectué 1) un test incrémenté pour déterminer le
Résultats. – La consommation d’oxygène ( ) à VT1 et VT2 était 22.9 ± 4.2 and 35.8 ± 4.7
deux entre VT1 (121 ± 28 W) et VT2 (228 ± 36 W). De plus, toute ces intensités sous
maximales étaient inférieures à MAP (278 ± 33 W). La corrélation entre PET et CP, exprimés
de manière relative au poids de corps, était significative (r = 0.84). Les corrélations entre PET
Conclusion. – PET n’était pas significativement différent de CP, et présentait des corrélations
modérées avec VT1, VT2 et obtenues lors du test incrémental. Ceci suggère la validité
Mots clés: Seuil de pénibilité perçue à l’effort; Puissance Critique; Seuils Ventilatoires;
The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) comprises a complex and integrated central
representation of several body functions that are acutely modified by exercise [13]. Although
estimation and active production settings. For this reason, RPE has been used to quantify a
wide range of exercise intensities [15,31,34] and to prescribe training at such intensities by
self-regulation [3,7,16,30].
Recently, Eston et al. [8-11] provided evidences showing that maximal oxygen uptake
by self-regulation at target RPE values. The measured at the end of each stage was
plotted against RPE to predict the value at RPE 20, and the predicted values were not
different from the observed ones. Furthermore, Okura and Tanaka [24] validated equations to
predict the anaerobic threshold and using demographic characteristics and the power
output corresponding to RPE 14-15 in incremental test. These evidences suggest that RPE can
Using 3-4 exhaustive square-wave tests, Nakamura et al. [21-23] outlined a method of
critical power (CP) estimation, which is defined as the maximum rate that muscle can keep up
“for a very long time without fatigue” [19], using the RPE responses. The linear regression
slope coefficients of the rate of rising RPE over time at each test (y axis) against its intensity
(x axis) presented a strong linear relationship. The x-intercept (called perceived exertion
threshold - PET) was considered the theoretical intensity corresponding to the maximal RPE
steady state, because the slope coefficient would be equal to zero. Besides not differing from
CP, PET did not differ from an indicator of maximal steady state. Thus, it can be also
considered an aerobic function parameter. However, it has not been compared with other
PET by comparing it with aerobic function parameters derived from square-wave (CP) and
incremental (first and second ventilatory thresholds – VT1 and VT2 – and maximal aerobic
power – MAP) tests, and by establishing relationships between PET and CP, at VT1, VT2
and .
2.1. Subjects
Eleven male college students (age: 24.4 ± 3.7 years; weight: 76.5 ± 11.7 kg; height:
1.77 ± 0.4 m) took part in this study. Subjects were asked to refrain from severe physical
activity for 24-h prior to the tests. They were also instructed to be adequately hydrated and
not to have eaten for 3-h prior to each test. This study was approved by the local Ethics
Committee of Human Studies. Subjects were informed about the procedures and risks before
The study was divided into three phases: (1) familiarization trials; (2) incremental test;
and (3) predictive trials. Tests were performed at approximately the same time of the day, at
least 3-h postprandial, and at room temperature ranging from 20 to 24oC. The study was
conducted within a two week period, with at least 24-h interval between successive tests.
2.3. Procedures
2.3.1. Ergometer
A Biotec 2100 (Cefise, Campinas, SP, Brazil) cycle ergometer with frictional flywheel
resistance was utilized in all tests. The seat height was adjusted according to the individual’s
lower limb length, so that legs were at near full extension during each pedal revolution. Toe
On alternate days, the subjects performed two severe exercise intensities on the
ergometer until voluntary exhaustion. All practice sessions were preceded by a 5-min warm-
up period at 30 W, followed by a rest period of equal duration. The cadence was fixed at 60
rpm. The exhaustion point was set by the incapacity of subjects to keep the target velocity for
a period greater than 5-s despite strong verbal encouragement. In general, the practice trials
caused exhaustion in 2-15 min. The aim of these practice trials was to familiarize the subjects
to the type of effort that they would perform during the predictive trials for critical power
model parameters, as well as PET estimation. These trials were also used to guide the choice
of cycling power outputs for the subsequent phases of the study. These results were not used
in any analyses.
During the familiarization trials, subjects were introduced to the use of a 15-point
Borg scale (Borg, 1982). The instructions given to the subjects included information about
anchoring of the scale at the extreme values (6 – a very light activity near resting metabolic
rate; 20 – the greatest effort sensation already experienced) and the correspondence of the
This session was performed to determine VT1, VT2, , and maximal aerobic
power (MAP). The subjects started the incremental test cycling at 30 W, and the power output
was increased by 30 W every minute until the subject could no longer maintain the pedal
cadence of 60 rpm despite verbal encouragement. The highest 30-s rolling average of
data during the last stage was taken as . was accepted as a maximal index when at
least two of the following criteria was met: occurrence of plateau (< 150 ml/min
increase between two consecutive stages), RER value above 1.10, and/or heart rate in excess
of 90% of age-predicted maximum. The MAP was calculated using the following equation
[17]:
Pulmonary gas exchange was assessed in the breath-by-breath mode (MetaLyzer 3B,
Cortex), with metabolic cart calibration being performed using ambient air and gas of known
O2 (16%) and CO2 (5%) concentrations, and turbine flow-meter was calibrated using a 3-l
syringe. This equipment presents high reliability and low inter-measurement variability [18].
The determination of VT1 and VT2 respected the Wasserman et al. [35] procedures.
The / and / data were plotted against time during the incremental exercise test.
The linear regression between and time throughout the incremental test was utilized to
estimate at VT1 and VT2. VT1 was identified from the first abrupt increase in the /
curve, without concomitant / increase. VT2 was identified from the systematic
the above criteria, two experienced researchers independently assessed the ventilatory
thresholds. If there was a disagreement, a third experienced investigator was involved in the
process [4].
respected the same procedures as conducted in the familiarization trials, except by the fact
that was measured breath-by-breath along the whole test duration. The participants were
not informed about the power output against which they were requested to cycle and neither
the expected duration of each predictive test. To fit the individual results to the critical power
Where AWC corresponds to the anaerobic work capacity, which is equivalent to the total
During the predictive trials the subjects were asked to report the RPE, corresponding
to a number on the 15-point Borg scale [2] fixed in front of them, whenever they felt that the
exertion sensation was increased. The first reported value was free and could be chosen as
soon as the subject felt able to accurately point the RPE levels.
The increase of RPE as a function of time until the attainment of maximal level (19 to
20) presented an approximately linear relationship in all subjects (Figure 1). The slope
coefficients of the regression lines were proportional to the power output performed during
The relationship between RPE increase rates (y axis) and exercise intensities (power
output – x axis) presented a strong linearity in all investigated subjects. Individually, the PET
intensity was defined as the intersection point of the regression line in the power axis (Figure
2). In theory, it represents the maximum intensity at which the RPE increase rate would be
Lilliefor´s correction). One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Bonferroni post
hoc test were utilized to compare PET and CP, power outputs at VT1, VT2 and MAP. The
same statistical test was used to compare the at the end of predictive trials and .
The repeated measures data were checked for sphericity using the Mauchly’s test, and
whenever the test was violated we performed the necessary technical corrections through the
between PET and CP, at LT1, LT2, and . All these measures were expressed in
relative values. Significance level was set at 5% (P < 0.05). For the data analyses, it was used
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 11.5 for Windows. Data
3. Results
During the incremental test, the at VT1 and VT2 were 22.9 ± 4.2 and 35.8 ± 4.7
Figure 3 shows that in all predictive trials, the final did not differ significantly
since the coefficient of determination (R2) approached the unity (0.977 ± 0.210). The AWC
amounted 23905 ± 2974 J. The R2 values corresponding to the linear regression between RPE
and time for overall predictive trials of PET estimation averaged 0.968 ± 0.034. The linear
regression slope coefficients of the rate of rising RPE over time (y axis) and the intensity
indicator (power output – x axis) also presented a strong linear relationship (0.958 ± 0.026).
Table 1 presents the power outputs corresponding to PET, CP, VT1, VT2 and MAP.
The PET and CP did not differ from each other, and both estimates were between VT1 and
The correlations between PET, expressed in relative terms to body mass (1.92 ± 0.46
W.kg-1), and CP, also expressed in relative terms (1.93 ± 0.50 W.kg-1), was r = 0.84 (P <
0.05). The correlations between PET and relative at VT1 (r = 0.76), VT2 (r = 0.72) and
(r = 0.73) were moderate, but significant (P < 0.05). For comparative purposes,
relative CP was also correlated with the aerobic indexes derived from the incremental test.
The correlations were higher for CP and relative at VT1 (r = 0.84), VT2 (r = 0.86) and
4. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to provide validity evidences to PET by
comparing and correlating it with other aerobic function parameters derived from square-
wave and incremental tests. Our results demonstrated that PET and CP were not different,
besides being highly correlated. In addition, PET was moderately correlated with different
The similarity between PET and CP confirmed previous reports [21-23]. Indeed, the
PET concept is derived from some of the critical power model assumptions. It is suggested
that the increase of RPE is associated with the AWC depletion rate [(P – CP)], which is
regarded to an energy store comprised of phosphagen pool, and a source related to anaerobic
glycolysis. The consequent cellular acid-basic disturbances seem to be the main afferent
signal source to RPE increase in severe exercise. This contention was supported indirectly by
the significant correlation found between blood lactate concentration and RPE along
intermittent predictive trials [25] designed to estimate intermittent critical power [1,6].
Therefore, the theoretical maximal RPE steady state (i.e. PET) should coincide with CP, since
confirmed this fact since the predictive trials at 130, 148, 172 and 200% of CP elicited the
to the maximal steady state. Consequently, PET has similar physiological significance,
which was confirmed by Nakamura et al. [22]. However, it should be pointed out that we
have observed attainment during running at critical velocity in the treadmill until
exhaustion [14]. Unfortunately, we have not tested constant load exercise at PET yet. This
The power output associated with PET and CP were between VT1 e VT2. Moritani et
al. [20] and Pouilly et al. [28] have shown that CP is equivalent to VT1. On the other hand,
Smith and Jones [33] demonstrated that CP corresponds to VT2. Therefore, there is no clear
evidence about the coincidence of CP and PET with any one of the ventilatory thresholds, and
and (r = 0.72-0.76), indicating that PET has potential in assessing aerobic fitness. CP
obtained in incremental test. These results also reinforce the validity of CP as an aerobic
parameter.
Previously, Smith et al. [32] have shown that CP, expressed both in absolute and
relative terms, was highly correlated with VT1, VT2 and (r = 0.68 – 0.93). However,
when correlated with 17 and 40 km cycling time trials, the CP expressed in relative terms
provided better results than absolute CP. These results support the use of relative CP as an
aerobic index, even in cycle ergometer, which does not involve body mass displacement.
The slightly lower correlations reported between PET and VT1, VT2 and ,
when compared with CP, can be attributed to the subjective nature of the measure. Though, it
should be emphasized that PET presented acceptable reproducibility levels for practical
applications (ICC = 0.85), with relatively high within-subject agreement as assessed by the
Bland and Altman’s 95% limits of agreement technique [23]. Doherty et al. [5] also have
reported high ICC levels (0.78 – 0.87) for RPE recorded in severe trials in treadmill of 2-min
duration. Thus, although subjective, RPE has been shown to be reliable for such testing
In conclusion, as PET did not significantly differ from CP, and since it presented
moderate correlations with VT1, VT2 and derived from incremental test, it can be
[1] Berthoin S, Baquet G, Dupont G, Van Praagh E. Critical velocity during continuous and
[2] Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1982;14:377-81.
[3] Ceci R, Hassmén P. Self-monitored exercise at three different RPE intensities in treadmill
ventilatory thresholds from heart rate variability in well-trained subjects during cycling. Int J
[5] Doherty M, Smith PM, Hughes MG, Collins D. Rating of perceived exertion during high-
[6] Dupont G, Blondel N, Lensel G, Berthoin S. Critical velocity and time spent at a high
level of VO2 for short intermittent runs at supramaximal velocities. Can J Appl Physiol.
2002;27:103-15.
[7] Eston RG, Williams JG. Reliability of ratings of perceived effort regulation of exercise
uptake from a perceptually-regulated graded exercise test. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005;94:221-7.
[9] Eston RG, Faulkner JA, Mason EA, Parfitt G. The validity of predicting maximal oxygen
uptake from perceptually regulated graded exercise tests of different durations. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2006;97:535-41.
sedentary males from a perceptually regulated, sub-maximal graded exercise test. J Sports
[11] Faulkner J, Parfitt G, Eston R. Prediction of maximal oxygen uptake from the ratings of
perceived exertion and heart rate during a perceptually-regulated sub-maximal exercise test in
[12] Gaesser GA, Poole DC. The slow component of oxygen uptake kinetics in humans.
[13] Hampson DB, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert MI, Noakes TD. The influence of sensory
cues on the perception of exertion during exercise and central regulation of exercise
[14] Hirai DM, Brunetto AF, Nakamura FY. Consumo de oxigênio em exercício exaustivo
2007;18:80-4.
[15] Irving BA, Rutkowski J, Brock DW, Davis CK, Barrett EJ, Gaesser GA, et al.
Comparison of Borg- and OMNI-RPE as markers of the blood lactate response to exercise.
[16] Kang J, Chaloupka EC, Mastrangelo MA, Donnelly MS, Martz WP, Robertson RJ.
Regulating exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion during arm and leg
[17] Luttikholt H, McNaughton LR, Midgley AW, Bentley DJ. A prediction model for peak
power output from different incremental exercise testes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2006;1:122-36.
[19] Monod H, Scherrer J. The work capacity of a synergic muscular group. Ergonomics
1965;8:329-38.
[20] Moritani T, Nagata A, deVries HA, Muro M. Critical power as a measure of physical
[21] Nakamura FY, Gancedo MR, Silva LA, Lima JRP, Kokubun E. Utilização do esforço
percebido na determinação da velocidade crítica em corrida aquática. Rev Bras Med Esporte
2005;11:1-5.
[22] Nakamura FY, Brunetto AF, Hirai DM, Roseguini BT, Kokubun E. O limiar de esforço
[23] Nakamura FY, Okuno NM, Perandini LAB, Caldeira LFS, Simões HG, Cardoso JR, et
al. Critical power can be estimated from non-exhaustive tests based on rating of perceived
[24] Okura T, Tanaka K. A unique method for predicting cardiorespiratory fitness using
[25] Perandini LAB, Okuno NM, Hirai DM, Simões HG, Cyrino ES, Nakamura FY.
[26] Poole DC, Ward SA, Gardner GW, Whipp BJ. Metabolic and respiratory profile of the
[27] Poole DC, Ward SA, Whipp BJ. The effects of training on the metabolic and respiratory
profile of high-intensity cycle ergometer exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
1990;59:421-9.
[28] Pouilly JP, Chatagnon M, Thomas V, Busso T. Estimation of the parameters of the
relationship between power and time to exhaustion from a single ramp test. Can J Appl
Physiol 2005;30:735-42.
[29] Ribeiro JP, Yang J, Adams RP, Kuca B, Knutten HG. Effect of different incremental
exercise protocols on the determination of lactate and ventilatory thresholds. Braz J Med Biol
Res 1986;19:109-17.
[30] Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Bell JA, Dixon CB, Gallagher KI, Lagally KM, et al. Self-
regulated cycling using the Children's OMNI Scale of Perceived Exertion. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2002;34:1168-75.
[31] Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Dube J, Rutkowski J, Dupain M, Brennan C, et al. Validation of
the adult OMNI scale of perceived exertion for cycle ergometer exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2004;36:102-8.
[32] Smith JC, Dangelmaier BS, Hill DW. Critical power is related to cycling time trial
[33] Smith CG, Jones AM. The relationship between critical velocity, maximal lactate steady-
state velocity and lactate turnpoint velocity in runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001;85:19-26.
[34] Utter AC, Robertson RJ, Green JM, Suminski RR, McAnulty SR, Nieman DC.
Validation of the Adult OMNI Scale of perceived exertion for walking/running exercise. Med
SD 31 33 28 36 33
a
Significantly different from CP and PET (P < 0.05)
b
Significantly different from VT1 (P < 0.05)
c
Significantly different from VT2 (P < 0.01)
d
Significantly different from MAP (P < 0.01)
Figures’ legend
Fig. 1. Increase of the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) as a function of time during
Fig. 2. Determination of the perceived exertion threshold (PET) through linear regression
between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) increase rate and power output of a representative
subject.
Fig. 3. Oxygen consumption at the end of predictive trials. The horizontal line indicates the
22
20
18
16
RPE
14 285 W
225 W
12 195 W
189 W
10
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s)
Fig. 1.
0,05
0,045
0,04
RPE increase rate (units . s-1)
0,035
0,03
0,025
0,02
0,015
0,01
0,005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Power (W)
Fig. 2.
60
50
VO2max
40
VO2 (l.min-1)
30
20
10
0
187 ± 32 W 212 ± 34 W 247 ± 39 W 286 ± 37 W
Predictive trials
Fig. 3.