1. SRCCpostertemplateprovidedbyInstructionalResourcesandOfficeofUndergraduateResearch
How Do Individuals Perceive Aerobic Exercise Intensity?
Robert Nickels, Exercise Physiology
Kristofer Wisniewski, PhD, ACSM-CEP, EIM-III, Department of Exercise Physiology
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) classifies
different exercise intensities through ranges of heart rate,
oxygen consumption, rating of perceived exertion, and the
metabolic needs of the activity. Currently, there are no
studies examining if individuals perceive the exercise
intensity level as it is defined by these physiological and
perceptual ranges. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to
determine if individuals perceive aerobic exercise intensities
as they are defined by the ACSM. Methods: 5 total subjects
(males, n=2; females, n=3) participated in this study.
Subjects completed a graded exercise test to maximal
exertion while rating the intensity during each stage of the
test. Subjects used a Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) Scale
with the following categories: 1-Very Light, 2-Light, 3-
Moderate, 4-Vigorous, 5-Near Maximal, and 6-Maximal.
Results: Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined using
%VO2R at the end of each stage. The PIL rated at the end
of each stage was compared against the AIL. Results: A
contingency table assessed agreement between PIL and
AIL. Cohen’s Kappa (Κ) showed the strength of the
agreement between PIL and AIL was strong (Κ = 0.722).
Significance: It is recommended that adults participate in
moderate and vigorous aerobic exercise for several health-
related benefits. These results may help to enhance the
prescription of self-regulating exercise intensity in fitness
programs where individuals prefer to use subjective methods
to self-regulate their aerobic intensity.
Purpose
Background/Introduction
Abstract
American College of Sports Medicine. (2010). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (8th
ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 5).
American College of Sports Medicine. (2014). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (9th
ed. ). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (p. 165).
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E., & Petruzzello, S. (2005) Some Like It Vigorous: Measuring Individual Differences in the
Preference for and Tolerance of Exercise Intensity. J Sport Exerc Psych. 27, 350-374.
Johnson, J. H. & Phipps, L., K. (2006). Preferred method of selecting exercise intensity in adult women. J
Strength Cond Res, 20(2), 446-449
Norton, K. , Norton, L. , & Sadgrove, D. (2010). Position statement on physical activity and exercise intensity
terminology. J Sci Med Sport. 13. 496-502.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Washington, D.C.
Wisniewski, K. (2012). Validation of OMNI RPE and Preferred Method of Regulating Exercise intensity in Obese
Adults (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3533041).
References
Results
Cohen’s Kappa = 0.722
Conclusions/Recommendations
 ACSM guidelines state individuals should exercise at a
moderate and/or vigorous intensity for health-fitness benefits.
 Subjects in this study showed a strong agreement (Κ = 0.722)
in their PIL compared to the AIL.
 Results may help enhance prescription for individuals who
prefer to use subjective methods to self-regulate their aerobic
exercise intensity.
 Future research:
◦ examine the agreement in individuals who vary in training status:
 sedentary vs. physically active vs. elite athletes
◦ effect of providing a definition of each intensity level on the
agreement
Methods
• The ACSM and AHA recommend that healthy adults
accumulate at least:
- 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic exercise
- 75 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic exercise
- Or a combination of both
- The ACSM defines moderate intensity as 40% to < 60%
VO2R that noticeably increases HR and breathing, and
vigorous intensity as ≥ 60% VO2R that substantially
increases HR and breathing.
- Public health guidelines state individuals should perform
aerobic exercise at either a moderate or vigorous
intensity. However, it is unknown if individuals accurately
perceive moderate intensity as moderate, or vigorous
intensity as vigorous. This question has important
implications for exercise intensity self-regulation in
health-fitness programming.
The purpose of this study is to determine if individuals perceive aerobic
exercise intensities as they are defined by the ACSM.
1. Very Light
2. Light
3. Moderate
4. Vigorous
5. Near Maximal
6. Maximal
Age
(yrs)
Height
(cm)
Weight
(kg)
BMI
(kg∙m-2)
Body Fat
(%)
VO2peak
(ml∙kg-1∙min-1)
n = 5 20.4 ± 1.8 172.4 ± 15.4 74.4 ± 16.6 24.8 ± 3.1 25.5 ± 11.1 45.2 ± 9.5
Table 1. Subject Characteristics (mean ± SD)
Exercise Trial
• Subjects’ height and weight were measured before testing.
• Subjects’ body composition was measured via Bod Pod testing.
• Subjects performed a graded treadmill exercise test until maximal effort.
• Initial treadmill speed was 1.5 mph.
• Speed and grade were increased every 3 minutes.
• HR (b∙min-1) and VO2 (l∙min-1) were recorded every minute.
• Perceived Intensity Level (PIL) was assessed at the end of each 3 minute
stage using the PIL Scale (Figure 1).
• PIL Scale instructions were read to all 5 participants (males, n = 2;
females, n = 3) prior to completing the exercise trial.
Data Analysis
• Actual Intensity Level (AIL) was determined for the final minute of each
stage and compared with the PIL for each stage.
• Determination of AIL:
• %VO2R = (VO2R - VO2rest) / (VO2peak – VO2rest) x 100
• < 30 % VO2R  Very Light
• 30 to < 40 % VO2R  Light
• 40 to < 60 % VO2R  Moderate
• 60 to < 90 % VO2R  Vigorous
• ≥ 90 % VO2R  Near Maximal / Maximal
• Near Maximal and Maximal PIL Scale responses were reduced to 1
category (Near Maximal / Maximal)
Fig 1. PIL Scale
Table 2. PIL vs. AIL Contingency Table
• Comparisons between AIL and PIL were undertaken using a
contingency table.
• Each stage completed served as a data point.
• Total data points = 27
• Agreement between AIL and PIL was assessed using
Cohen’s Kappa (Κ).
• Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS, Version 22.0
(IBM, Armonk, NY).
Methods Cont’d.