Despite the terms' often being used interchangeably, it has been suggested that perceptions of effort and perceptions of exertion may differ. Eccentric (ECC) cycling may provide a model of exercise by which differences between these perceptions can be examined. PURPOSE: To examine and compare perceptions of effort and exertion during ECC and concentric (CONC) cycling at 4 intensities. METHODS:Ten healthy male participants (mean [SD]: age = 29.8 [2.3] y) performed an incremental cycling test for the determination of maximal aerobic power output, followed in a randomized and crossover design, by four 5-min bouts (30%, 60%, 80%, and maximal) of either ECC or CONC cycling. Through each bout, participants were asked to report their perceived effort, exertion, and muscle pain. Heart rate and oxygen consumption were continuously recorded throughout each bout. RESULTS:Perceived exertion was greater for CONC at 30% (8.5 [1.5] vs 7.1 [1.8]; P = .01), 60% (12.4 [1.4] vs 10.3 [2.0]; P = .01), 80% (15.8 [1.7] vs 12.4 [2.5]; P < .01), and maximal (17.2 [1.3] vs 15.6 [1.8]; P = .03) in comparison with ECC. Perceptions of effort and pain were similar between CONC and ECC. Heart rate and oxygen consumption were greater during CONC than ECC. CONCLUSIONS:Perceived exertion was greater during CONC compared with ECC cycling, yet effort was similar between conditions despite different physiological stress. Such findings have implications for understanding the development of such perceptions during exercise.
RCT Entities:
Despite the terms' often being used interchangeably, it has been suggested that perceptions of effort and perceptions of exertion may differ. Eccentric (ECC) cycling may provide a model of exercise by which differences between these perceptions can be examined. PURPOSE: To examine and compare perceptions of effort and exertion during ECC and concentric (CONC) cycling at 4 intensities. METHODS: Ten healthy male participants (mean [SD]: age = 29.8 [2.3] y) performed an incremental cycling test for the determination of maximal aerobic power output, followed in a randomized and crossover design, by four 5-min bouts (30%, 60%, 80%, and maximal) of either ECC or CONC cycling. Through each bout, participants were asked to report their perceived effort, exertion, and muscle pain. Heart rate and oxygen consumption were continuously recorded throughout each bout. RESULTS: Perceived exertion was greater for CONC at 30% (8.5 [1.5] vs 7.1 [1.8]; P = .01), 60% (12.4 [1.4] vs 10.3 [2.0]; P = .01), 80% (15.8 [1.7] vs 12.4 [2.5]; P < .01), and maximal (17.2 [1.3] vs 15.6 [1.8]; P = .03) in comparison with ECC. Perceptions of effort and pain were similar between CONC and ECC. Heart rate and oxygen consumption were greater during CONC than ECC. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived exertion was greater during CONC compared with ECC cycling, yet effort was similar between conditions despite different physiological stress. Such findings have implications for understanding the development of such perceptions during exercise.
Authors: Georgios Mavropalias; Tomoko Koeda; Oliver R Barley; Wayne C K Poon; Aiden J Fisher; Anthony J Blazevich; Kazunori Nosaka Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Denisse Valladares-Ide; Maria José Bravo; Ana Carvajal; Oscar F Araneda; Marcelo Tuesta; Alvaro Reyes; Reyna Peñailillo; Luis Peñailillo Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-03-06 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Georgios Mavropalias; Leslie Calapre; Michael Morici; Tomoko Koeda; Wayne C K Poon; Oliver R Barley; Elin Gray; Anthony J Blazevich; Kazunori Nosaka Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.078