| Literature DB >> 32116903 |
Vittoria Maria Patania1, Johnny Padulo2, Enzo Iuliano3, Luca Paolo Ardigò4, Dražen Čular1, Alen Miletić1, Andrea De Giorgio3.
Abstract
The use of music during training represents a special paradigm for trainers to stimulate people undertaking different types of exercise. However, the relationship between the tempo of music and perception of effort during different metabolic demands is still unclear. Therefore, the aim of this research was to determine whether high intensity exercise is more sensitive to the beneficial effects of music than endurance exercise. This study assessed 19 active women (age 26.4 ± 2.6 years) during endurance (walking for 10' at 6.5 km/h on a treadmill) and high intensity (80% on 1-RM) exercise under four different randomly assigned conditions: no music (NM), with music at 90-110 bpm (LOW), with music at 130-150 bpm (MED), and with music at 170-190 bpm (HIGH). During each trial, heart rate (HR) and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed. Repeated analysis of variance measures was used to detect any differences between the four conditions during high intensity and low intensity exercise. RPE showed more substantial changes during the endurance exercises (11%), than during high intensity exercise (6.5%), between HIGH and NM conditions. The metabolic demand during the walking exercise increased between NM and HIGH bpm conditions. This study indicates the benefits of music under stress conditions as well as during endurance and high intensity training. The results demonstrate that the beneficial effects of music are more likely to be seen in endurance exercise. Consequently, music may be considered an important tool to stimulate people engaging in low intensity physical exercise.Entities:
Keywords: RPE; exercise; rating perception effort; sport; training and testing
Year: 2020 PMID: 32116903 PMCID: PMC7013107 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Characteristics of participants.
| Mass (kg) | Height (cm) | BMI (kg/m2) | Age (years) | Theoretical maximal HR (bpm) | Training experience | Training experience (years) | |
| Participant 1 | 67.2 | 175 | 22.0 | 24 | 187 | EIE | 16 |
| Participant 2 | 61.3 | 168 | 21.7 | 26 | 186 | EIE | 13 |
| Participant 3 | 63.8 | 170 | 22.1 | 24 | 190 | EIE | 12 |
| Participant 4 | 67.5 | 177 | 21.6 | 26 | 175 | EIE | 15 |
| Participant 5 | 56.6 | 167 | 20.3 | 29 | 186 | HIE | 7 |
| Participant 6 | 63.9 | 175 | 20.9 | 31 | 184 | EIE | 3 |
| Participant 7 | 62.0 | 173 | 20.3 | 25 | 185 | EIE | 14 |
| Participant 8 | 48.9 | 160 | 19.1 | 24 | 179 | HIE | 2 |
| Participant 9 | 61.3 | 169 | 21.5 | 24 | 177 | EIE | 1 |
| Participant 10 | 57.4 | 165 | 21.1 | 24 | 190 | HIE | 5 |
| Participant 11 | 53.0 | 170 | 18.3 | 24 | 170 | HIE | 1 |
| Participant 12 | 62.9 | 164 | 23.4 | 25 | 185 | HIE | 3 |
| Participant 13 | 70.0 | 170 | 24.2 | 29 | 184 | EIE | 11 |
| Participant 14 | 53.7 | 170 | 18.6 | 31 | 187 | HIE | 7 |
| Participant 15 | 61.3 | 157 | 24.9 | 27 | 187 | HIE | 0.6 |
| Participant 16 | 57.3 | 177 | 18.3 | 31 | 178 | EIE | 2 |
| Participant 17 | 54.5 | 170 | 18.9 | 27 | 184 | HIE | 1 |
| Participant 18 | 55.0 | 168 | 19.5 | 26 | 184 | EIE | 4 |
| Participant 19 | 54.5 | 173 | 18.2 | 25 | 188 | EIE | 3 |
| MEAN | 59.58 | 169.37 | 20.78 | 26.42 | 183.47 | – | 6.35 |
| SD | 5.65 | 5.30 | 2.02 | 2.57 | 5.31 | – | 5.39 |
Results with pairwise comparisons among the four music conditions.
| Dependent variables | Music conditions | Mean | SD | 95% CI | Pairwise comparisons | ||||
| Lower | Upper | NM vs. | LOW vs. | MED vs. | HIGH vs. | ||||
| aHRwalking (bpm) | NM | 83.37 | 4.166 | 81.360 | 85.376 | LOW: | NM: | NM: | NM: |
| LOW | 95.79 | 4.237 | 93.747 | 97.832 | MED: | MED: | LOW: | LOW: | |
| MED | 99.47 | 3.289 | 97.888 | 101.059 | HIGH: | HIGH: | HIGH: | MED: | |
| HIGH | 110.11 | 4.054 | 108.151 | 112.059 | |||||
| pHRwalking (bpm) | NM | 95.95 | 4.731 | 93.667 | 98.228 | LOW: | NM: | NM: | NM: |
| LOW | 104.37 | 4.044 | 102.419 | 106.318 | MED: | MED: | LOW: | LOW: | |
| MED | 109.05 | 4.020 | 107.115 | 110.990 | HIGH: | HIGH: | HIGH: | MED: | |
| HIGH | 125.37 | 4.044 | 123.419 | 127.318 | |||||
| RPEwalking (Borg’s scale score) | NM | 9.26 | 0.653 | 8.948 | 9.578 | LOW: | NM: | NM: | NM: |
| LOW | 8.58 | 0.692 | 8.245 | 8.913 | MED: | MED: | LOW: | LOW: | |
| MED | 8.05 | 0.848 | 7.644 | 8.461 | HIGH: | HIGH: | HIGH: | MED: | |
| HIGH | 7.47 | 0.772 | 7.101 | 7.846 | |||||
| 1RMlp (kg) | NM | 133.26 | 41.777 | 113.127 | 153.399 | LOW: | NM: | NM: | NM: |
| LOW | 133.26 | 41.777 | 113.127 | 153.399 | MED: | MED: | LOW: | LOW: | |
| MED | 133.26 | 41.777 | 113.127 | 153.399 | HIGH: | HIGH: | HIGH: | MED: | |
| HIGH | 136.47 | 43.004 | 115.746 | 157.201 | |||||
| RPElp (Borg’s scale score) | NM | 16.26 | 1.447 | 15.566 | 16.961 | LOW: | NM: | NM: | NM: |
| LOW | 15.89 | 1.595 | 15.126 | 16.663 | MED: | MED: | LOW: | LOW: | |
| MED | 15.53 | 1.541 | 14.784 | 16.269 | HIGH: | HIGH: | HIGH: | MED: | |
| HIGH | 15.21 | 1.228 | 14.618 | 15.803 | |||||
FIGURE 1Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) in both exercises during the four conditions. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.