We're building a better ClinicalTrials.gov. Check it out and tell us what you think!
Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Comparison of Exercise Intensity Prescription

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02351713
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : January 30, 2015
Last Update Posted : February 3, 2015
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Lance Dalleck, Western Colorado University

Brief Summary:

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two exercise training programs for improving cardiorespiratory fitness: the ACE three-zone training model (i.e., threshold based training) versus the more common ACSM recommended relative percent method (i.e., %HRR).

It is hypothesized that:

  1. The ACE three-zone training model will elicit greater mean changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (as measured by VO2max) when compared to the relative percent method.
  2. Participants in the ACE three-zone training model group will be more likely to have favorable VO2max responses; while comparatively, participants in the relative percent method group would be more likely to experience a VO2max nonresponse to exercise training.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Cardiovascular Disease Other: Exercise Phase 2

Detailed Description:

Cardiorespiratory fitness, typically determined by maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), is a fundamental measurement for the exercise physiologist and other health professionals. VO2max refers to the highest rate at which oxygen can be taken up and consumed by the body during intense exercise. The "F.I.T.T." principle is an acronym for the four components for exercise prescription: frequency, intensity, time (length), and type of exercise.

Exercise intensity is arguably the most critical component of the exercise prescription model. Failure to meet minimal threshold values may result in lack of a training effect, while too high of an exercise intensity could lead to over-training and negatively impact adherence to an exercise program. The traditional reference standard for prescribing exercise intensity is expressed in terms of percentages of heart rate reserve (%HRR) or oxygen uptake reserve (%VO2R). This is considered the 'relative percent method'. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) currently recommends an exercise intensity of 40-59% HRR/VO2R for improving and maintaining cardiorespiratory fitness. Nevertheless, despite a large evidence base supporting the ACSM relative percent concept recommendation for prescribing exercise intensity, there is concern that the approach consists of a very large range of acceptable percentages and fails to take into account individual metabolic responses to exercises. This study sought to compare the effectiveness of two exercise training programs for improving cardiorespiratory fitness: the ACE three-zone training model (i.e., threshold based training) versus the more common ACSM recommended relative percent concept (i.e., %HRR).

Apparently healthy, but sedentary men and women (n = 42) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two exercise training groups. Exercise training was performed 30 min/day on 5 days/wk for 12wk according to one of two exercise intensity regimens: 1) a relative percent method was used in which intensity was prescribed according to percentages of heart rate reserve (HRR group), or 2) a threshold based method (ACE-3ZM) was used in which intensity was prescribed according to the first ventilatory threshold (VT1) and second ventilatory threshold (VT2).

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 42 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double (Participant, Care Provider)
Primary Purpose: Prevention
Official Title: Is a Threshold-Based Model a Superior Method to the Relative Percent Concept for Establishing Individual Exercise Intensity? A Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Start Date : May 2014
Actual Primary Completion Date : January 2015
Actual Study Completion Date : January 2015

Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: Threshold based method
Exercise Week 1 Heart rate (HR) < first ventilatory threshold (VT1) 3 days 20 min/day Week 2 HR < VT1 4 days 25 min/day Week 3 HR < VT1 4 days 30 min/day Week 4 HR < VT1 5 days 30 min/day Week 5-6 HR ≥ VT1 to < second ventilatory threshold (VT2) 5 days 30 min/day Weeks 7-8 HR ≥ VT1 to < VT2 5 days 30 min/day Weeks 9-12 HR ≥ VT2 5 days 30 min/day
Other: Exercise
Continuous aerobic exercise prescribed according to two exercise intensity methods: threshold based method (i.e., ventilatory threshold) and relative percent method (i.e., heart rate reserve).

Experimental: Relative percent method
Exercise Week 1 40-45% heart rate reserve 3 days 20 min/day Week 2 40-45% heart rate reserve 4 days 25 min/day Week 3 40-45% heart rate reserve 4 days 30 min/day Week 4 40-45% heart rate reserve 5 days 30 min/day Week 5-6 50-55% heart rate reserve 5 days 30 min/day Weeks 7-8 50-55% heart rate reserve 5 days 30min/day Weeks 9-12 60-65% heart rate reserve 5 days 30 min/day
Other: Exercise
Continuous aerobic exercise prescribed according to two exercise intensity methods: threshold based method (i.e., ventilatory threshold) and relative percent method (i.e., heart rate reserve).

No Intervention: Control
Non-exercise control group



Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) as a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness [ Time Frame: 12 weeks ]
  2. Estimate of 10-year Cardiovascular Disease Risk [ Time Frame: 12 weeks ]


Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 55 Years   (Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Participants were eligible for inclusion into the study if they were low-to-moderate risk as defined by the ACSM and sedentary.
  • Participants were also eligible for inclusion into the study if they verbally agreed to continue previous dietary habits and not perform additional exercise beyond that required for the present study.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Exclusionary criteria included evidence of cardiovascular pulmonary, and/or metabolic disease.
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Lance Dalleck, Assistant Professor, Western Colorado University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02351713    
Other Study ID Numbers: WesternSCU
First Posted: January 30, 2015    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: February 3, 2015
Last Verified: January 2015
Keywords provided by Lance Dalleck, Western Colorado University:
primary prevention
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases