A New Strategy for the Implementation of an Aerobic Training Session

• Autores: Tony Meirelles do Santos, Paulo S. C. Gomes, Bruno R R. Oliveira, Leonardo Gonçalves Ribeiro, Walter R. Thompson
• Localización: Journal of strength and conditioning research: the research journal of the NSCA, ISSN 1064-8011, Vol. 26, Nº. 1, 2012, págs. 87-93
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • The objectives were to propose a new strategy for adjusting aerobic training variables based on the eighth American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines and maximal aerobic power ([latin capital V with dot above]O2max) and to establish energy expenditure (EE) recommendations for training, which depend on a subject's body mass (BM). Exclusively based on aerobic training recommendations that are available in the ACSM guidelines, 16 equally partitioned subcategories were created from the slope of a linear regression between the lower (16.4 ml·kg-1·min-1) and upper (61.2 ml·kg-1·min-1) limits of [latin capital V with dot above]O2max percentile tables and all aerobic variables (intensity: 30�85%Reserve, duration: 60�300 min·wk-1, frequency: 3�5 d·wk-1, and EE: 1,000�4,000 kcal·wk-1). ACSM's EE (EEACSM) recommendation was compared to EE based on [latin capital V with dot above]O2max (EEActual), BM, exercise intensity and duration combined, for five BM categories (60 to 100 kg). The following equations were generated to adjust aerobic training: Intensity (%Reserve) = [latin capital V with dot above]O2max (ml·kg-1·min-1) × 1.23 + 9.85, Duration (min·wk-1) = [latin capital V with dot above]O2max × 5.36�27.91, Frequency (d·wk-1) = [latin capital V with dot above]O2max × 0.044 + 2.27, EEACSM (kcal·wk-1) = [latin capital V with dot above]O2max × 82.61�1,055.29, and EEActual (kcal·wk-1) = ([[latin capital V with dot above]O2max - 3.5] × Intensity + 3.5) × BM (kg)/200 × Frequency. A comparison of EEACSM and EEActual for 5 BM and 3 aerobic fitness categories demonstrated an effect size classification that is equal or superior to �large� in 9 of 15 comparisons, suggesting that EEACSM adjustment is inadequate at least 60% of the time. Despite the need to verify the adequacy of the linear model and perform future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, the present proposal first provides criteria to adjust aerobic training variables consistent with subject capacity, thus diminishing the risk of the imprecise aerobic prescription.