TY - JOUR AU - Coelho Silva, Adriano AU - Magalhães Sales, Marcelo AU - Machado, Sérgio AU - Ferreira Pedrosa, Gustavo AU - Andre Barbosa de Lira, Claudio AU - Augusto Querido Inacio, Pedro AU - Pereira da Silva Rocha, Fernanda AU - Rodrigues Vilela, Gabriella AU - Carvalho, Alessandro Oliveira AU - de Conti Teixeira Costa, Gustavo AU - Sá Filho, Alberto PY - 2023/03/16 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Different physiological, but similar affective responses, facing different workload quantification methods JF - Manual Therapy, Posturology & Rehabilitation Journal JA - mtprehabjournal VL - 21 IS - SE - Research articles DO - 10.17784/mtprehabjournal.2023.21.1283 UR - https://mtprehabjournal.com/revista/article/view/1283 SP - 1-6 AB - <p><strong>Backgroung: </strong>The literature provides support for several different method by which it is possible to quantify, prescribe and control the aerobic workload. <strong>Objective: </strong>To compare physiological and the affective response among training methods prescribed by VO2 reserve, HR reserve, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) self-adjusted. <strong>Methods:</strong> 27 participants were submitted to two trail sessions. In the 1st, a maximum treadmill effort test was performed to determine the VO2max. In the 2nd, the participants were randomly divided into 3 situations of 5 min, with 5 min interval among the situations. In situation 1 (C1), the participants ran at the velocity correspondent to 65% of the VO2 reserve; in situation 2 (C2), participants ran at 60% to 65% of HR reserve and in situation 3 (C3), the participants self-adjustment the velocity by a RPE scale, in a moderate effort (RPE 3-4). The level of body activation and the affective response were obtained pre and post-stimulus administered. An ANOVA was performed and the magnitude of the differences established, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. <strong>Results:</strong> There were no significant differences for velocity in the three situations (p = 0.458). The responses of HR induced by C1 and C3 were significantly higher vs. C2 (p = 0.027 and p = 0.043). The RPE did not show significant differences among the situations (p = 0.118). Finally, the level of activation and sensation perceived activity did not differ significantly (p = 0.168). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> It was concluded that the exercise responses from the HR reserve were significantly lower when compared to the VO2reserve and RPE. All prescription models provided similar affective responses.</p> ER -