Responses to Exercise at the Critical Heart Rate vs. the Power Output Associated with the Critical Heart Rate

Pasquale J. Succi; Taylor K. Dinyer-McNeely; Caleb C. Voskuil; Mark G. Abel; Jody L. Clasey; Haley C. Bergstrom

doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547

Responses to Exercise at the Critical Heart Rate vs. the Power Output Associated with the Critical Heart Rate

Pasquale J. Succi, Taylor K. Dinyer-McNeely, Caleb C. Voskuil, Mark G. Abel, Jody L. Clasey, Haley C. Bergstrom

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Succi, PJ, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Voskuil, CC, Abel, MG, Clasey, JL, and Bergstrom, HC. Responses to exercise at the critical heart rate vs. the power output associated with the critical heart rate. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2362-2372, 2023 - This study examined the physiological (volume of oxygen consumption [Vo₂], heart rate [HR], power output [PO], respiration rate [RR], muscle oxygen saturation [%SmO₂]), neuromuscular (electromyographic and mechanomyographic amplitude [EMG AMP and MMG AMP] and mean power frequency [EMG MPF and MMG MPF]), and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during exercise anchored at the critical heart rate (CHR) vs. the PO associated with CHR (PCHR). Nine subjects (mean ± SD; age = 26 ± 3 years) performed a graded exercise test and 4 constant PO trials to exhaustion at 85-100% of peak PO (PP) to derive CHR and PCHR on a cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded during trials at CHR (173 ± 9 b·min^-1, time to exhaustion [T_Lim] = 45.5 ± 20.2 minutes) and PCHR (198 ± 58 W, T_Lim= 21.0 ± 17.8 minutes) and normalized to their respective values at PP in 10% intervals. There were significant (p ≤ 0.05) mode (CHR vs. PCHR) × time (10%-100% T_Lim) interactions for all variables (p < 0.001-0.036) except MMG AMP (p > 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated differences across time for CHR Vo₂(%change = -22 ± 16%), PCHR Vo₂(19 ± 5%), CHR RR (24 ± 23%), PCHR RR (45 ± 14%), CHR PO (-33 ± 11%), PCHR HR (22 ± 5%), CHR RPE (22 ± 14%), PCHR RPE (39 ± 6%), CHR %SmO₂(41 ± 33%), PCHR %SmO₂(-18 ± 40%), CHR EMG AMP (-13 ± 15%), PCHR EMG AMP (13 ± 13%), CHR EMG MPF (9 ± 8%), CHR MMG MPF (7 ± 11%), and PCHR MMG MPF (-3 ± 14%). The critical heart rate was more sustainable than PCHR but required adjustments in PO which traversed intensity domains and caused dissociations of the responses previously observed in exercise anchored to PO. These dissociations indicated the demands to exercise varied with anchoring scheme and provides an important consideration for practitioners prescribing endurance exercise.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2362-2372
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume	37
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547
State	Published - Dec 1 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Supported by the University Kinesiology and Health Promotion Student Research Award.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association. All rights reserved.

Funding

Supported by the University Kinesiology and Health Promotion Student Research Award.

Funders	Funder number
University Kinesiology and Health Promotion Student Research Award

Keywords

aerobic exercise
critical power
cycling
endurance
exercise intensity domains
exercise prescription

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Access to Document

10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547

Cite this

@article{a34517c2ce4f4ad7984846dbe94ca7c9,

title = "Responses to Exercise at the Critical Heart Rate vs. the Power Output Associated with the Critical Heart Rate",

abstract = "Succi, PJ, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Voskuil, CC, Abel, MG, Clasey, JL, and Bergstrom, HC. Responses to exercise at the critical heart rate vs. the power output associated with the critical heart rate. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2362-2372, 2023 - This study examined the physiological (volume of oxygen consumption [Vo2], heart rate [HR], power output [PO], respiration rate [RR], muscle oxygen saturation [%SmO2]), neuromuscular (electromyographic and mechanomyographic amplitude [EMG AMP and MMG AMP] and mean power frequency [EMG MPF and MMG MPF]), and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during exercise anchored at the critical heart rate (CHR) vs. the PO associated with CHR (PCHR). Nine subjects (mean ± SD; age = 26 ± 3 years) performed a graded exercise test and 4 constant PO trials to exhaustion at 85-100% of peak PO (PP) to derive CHR and PCHR on a cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded during trials at CHR (173 ± 9 b·min-1, time to exhaustion [TLim] = 45.5 ± 20.2 minutes) and PCHR (198 ± 58 W, TLim= 21.0 ± 17.8 minutes) and normalized to their respective values at PP in 10% intervals. There were significant (p ≤ 0.05) mode (CHR vs. PCHR) × time (10%-100% TLim) interactions for all variables (p < 0.001-0.036) except MMG AMP (p > 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated differences across time for CHR Vo2(%change = -22 ± 16%), PCHR Vo2(19 ± 5%), CHR RR (24 ± 23%), PCHR RR (45 ± 14%), CHR PO (-33 ± 11%), PCHR HR (22 ± 5%), CHR RPE (22 ± 14%), PCHR RPE (39 ± 6%), CHR %SmO2(41 ± 33%), PCHR %SmO2(-18 ± 40%), CHR EMG AMP (-13 ± 15%), PCHR EMG AMP (13 ± 13%), CHR EMG MPF (9 ± 8%), CHR MMG MPF (7 ± 11%), and PCHR MMG MPF (-3 ± 14%). The critical heart rate was more sustainable than PCHR but required adjustments in PO which traversed intensity domains and caused dissociations of the responses previously observed in exercise anchored to PO. These dissociations indicated the demands to exercise varied with anchoring scheme and provides an important consideration for practitioners prescribing endurance exercise.",

keywords = "aerobic exercise, critical power, cycling, endurance, exercise intensity domains, exercise prescription",

author = "Succi, {Pasquale J.} and Dinyer-McNeely, {Taylor K.} and Voskuil, {Caleb C.} and Abel, {Mark G.} and Clasey, {Jody L.} and Bergstrom, {Haley C.}",

note = "Funding Information: Supported by the University Kinesiology and Health Promotion Student Research Award. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association. All rights reserved.",

year = "2023",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547",

language = "English",

volume = "37",

pages = "2362--2372",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responses to Exercise at the Critical Heart Rate vs. the Power Output Associated with the Critical Heart Rate

AU - Succi, Pasquale J.

AU - Dinyer-McNeely, Taylor K.

AU - Voskuil, Caleb C.

AU - Abel, Mark G.

AU - Clasey, Jody L.

AU - Bergstrom, Haley C.

N1 - Funding Information: Supported by the University Kinesiology and Health Promotion Student Research Award. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association. All rights reserved.

PY - 2023/12/1

Y1 - 2023/12/1

N2 - Succi, PJ, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Voskuil, CC, Abel, MG, Clasey, JL, and Bergstrom, HC. Responses to exercise at the critical heart rate vs. the power output associated with the critical heart rate. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2362-2372, 2023 - This study examined the physiological (volume of oxygen consumption [Vo2], heart rate [HR], power output [PO], respiration rate [RR], muscle oxygen saturation [%SmO2]), neuromuscular (electromyographic and mechanomyographic amplitude [EMG AMP and MMG AMP] and mean power frequency [EMG MPF and MMG MPF]), and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during exercise anchored at the critical heart rate (CHR) vs. the PO associated with CHR (PCHR). Nine subjects (mean ± SD; age = 26 ± 3 years) performed a graded exercise test and 4 constant PO trials to exhaustion at 85-100% of peak PO (PP) to derive CHR and PCHR on a cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded during trials at CHR (173 ± 9 b·min-1, time to exhaustion [TLim] = 45.5 ± 20.2 minutes) and PCHR (198 ± 58 W, TLim= 21.0 ± 17.8 minutes) and normalized to their respective values at PP in 10% intervals. There were significant (p ≤ 0.05) mode (CHR vs. PCHR) × time (10%-100% TLim) interactions for all variables (p < 0.001-0.036) except MMG AMP (p > 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated differences across time for CHR Vo2(%change = -22 ± 16%), PCHR Vo2(19 ± 5%), CHR RR (24 ± 23%), PCHR RR (45 ± 14%), CHR PO (-33 ± 11%), PCHR HR (22 ± 5%), CHR RPE (22 ± 14%), PCHR RPE (39 ± 6%), CHR %SmO2(41 ± 33%), PCHR %SmO2(-18 ± 40%), CHR EMG AMP (-13 ± 15%), PCHR EMG AMP (13 ± 13%), CHR EMG MPF (9 ± 8%), CHR MMG MPF (7 ± 11%), and PCHR MMG MPF (-3 ± 14%). The critical heart rate was more sustainable than PCHR but required adjustments in PO which traversed intensity domains and caused dissociations of the responses previously observed in exercise anchored to PO. These dissociations indicated the demands to exercise varied with anchoring scheme and provides an important consideration for practitioners prescribing endurance exercise.

AB - Succi, PJ, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Voskuil, CC, Abel, MG, Clasey, JL, and Bergstrom, HC. Responses to exercise at the critical heart rate vs. the power output associated with the critical heart rate. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2362-2372, 2023 - This study examined the physiological (volume of oxygen consumption [Vo2], heart rate [HR], power output [PO], respiration rate [RR], muscle oxygen saturation [%SmO2]), neuromuscular (electromyographic and mechanomyographic amplitude [EMG AMP and MMG AMP] and mean power frequency [EMG MPF and MMG MPF]), and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during exercise anchored at the critical heart rate (CHR) vs. the PO associated with CHR (PCHR). Nine subjects (mean ± SD; age = 26 ± 3 years) performed a graded exercise test and 4 constant PO trials to exhaustion at 85-100% of peak PO (PP) to derive CHR and PCHR on a cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded during trials at CHR (173 ± 9 b·min-1, time to exhaustion [TLim] = 45.5 ± 20.2 minutes) and PCHR (198 ± 58 W, TLim= 21.0 ± 17.8 minutes) and normalized to their respective values at PP in 10% intervals. There were significant (p ≤ 0.05) mode (CHR vs. PCHR) × time (10%-100% TLim) interactions for all variables (p < 0.001-0.036) except MMG AMP (p > 0.05). Post hoc analyses indicated differences across time for CHR Vo2(%change = -22 ± 16%), PCHR Vo2(19 ± 5%), CHR RR (24 ± 23%), PCHR RR (45 ± 14%), CHR PO (-33 ± 11%), PCHR HR (22 ± 5%), CHR RPE (22 ± 14%), PCHR RPE (39 ± 6%), CHR %SmO2(41 ± 33%), PCHR %SmO2(-18 ± 40%), CHR EMG AMP (-13 ± 15%), PCHR EMG AMP (13 ± 13%), CHR EMG MPF (9 ± 8%), CHR MMG MPF (7 ± 11%), and PCHR MMG MPF (-3 ± 14%). The critical heart rate was more sustainable than PCHR but required adjustments in PO which traversed intensity domains and caused dissociations of the responses previously observed in exercise anchored to PO. These dissociations indicated the demands to exercise varied with anchoring scheme and provides an important consideration for practitioners prescribing endurance exercise.

KW - aerobic exercise

KW - critical power

KW - cycling

KW - endurance

KW - exercise intensity domains

KW - exercise prescription

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85178499299&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85178499299&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004547

M3 - Article

C2 - 37369084

AN - SCOPUS:85178499299

SN - 1064-8011

VL - 37

SP - 2362

EP - 2372

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

IS - 12

ER -

Responses to Exercise at the Critical Heart Rate vs. the Power Output Associated with the Critical Heart Rate

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this