The incidence of training responsiveness to cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiometabolic measurements following individualized and standardized exercise prescription: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundThere is individual variability to cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training, but the underlying cause is not well understood. Traditionally, a standardized approach to exercise prescription has utilized relative percentages of maximal heart rate, heart rate reserve (HRR), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), or VO2 reserve to establish exercise intensity. However, this model fails to take into consideration individual metabolic responses to exercise and may attribute to the variability in training responses. It has been proposed that an individualized approach would take into consideration metabolic responses to exercises to increase responsiveness to training.MethodsIn this randomized control trial, participants will undergo a 12-week exercise intervention using individualized (ventilatory thresholds) and standardized (HRR) methods to prescribe CRF training intensity. Following the intervention, participants will be categorized as responders or non-responders based on changes in maximal aerobic abilities. Participants who are non-responders will complete a second 12-week intervention in a crossover design to determine whether they can become responders with a differing exercise prescription. There are four main research outcomes: (1) determine the cohort-specific technical error to use in the categorization of response rate; (2) determine if an individualized intensity prescription is superior to a standard approach in regards to VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors; (3) investigate the time course changes throughout 12 weeks of CRF training between the two intervention groups; and (4) determine if non-responders can become responders if the exercise prescription is modified.DiscussionThe findings from this research will provide evidence on the effectiveness of individualized exercise prescription related to training responsiveness of VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors compared to a standardized approach and further our understanding of individual exercise responses. If the individualized approach proposed is deemed effective, it may change the way exercise specialists prescribe exercise intensity to enhance training responsiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02868710. Registered on 15 August 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1735-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Changes in Metabolic Syndrome Severity Following Individualized Versus Standardized Exercise Prescription: A Feasibility Study

“…The current investigation is a secondary analysis of a larger randomized control trial. A description of the study methodology and rationale has been previously published in detail [ 16 ]. The Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (16/264) and the Western State Colorado University Institutional Review Board (HRC2016-01-90R6) have approved the methodology for this study.…”

Using a site-specific technical error to establish training responsiveness: a preliminary explorative study

“…Sixteen men and women were sampled from a randomized control trial being conducted in a community exercise program 17 and were included if they were currently sedentary (participating in no more than 30 min/d of physical activity on 3 days a week), between the ages of 30 and 75, and no medical contraindications as per the exclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included signs or symptoms suggestive of pulmonary, cardiovascular, or metabolic conditions as determined by a standard medical history questionnaire.…”

“…The GXT and verification testing to confirm attainment of VO 2 max were completed using protocols previously published. 17 In summary, participants completed a modified-Balke, pseudo-ramp protocol on a motorized treadmill (Powerjog, GX200, Portland, ME, USA) until volitional fatigue. Following a 4 minute warm-up, participants ran or walked at a self-selected pace, and the grade increased by 1% each minute.…”

Comparison between Different Prescription Methods for Aerobic Training in Young Adults

“…In recent years, there have been questions about what is the best way to determine the intensities of aerobic exercise. Prescription should follow the results of the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) or may use indirect methods (%Maximum Heart Rate-HRmax (max heart rate) or %Reserve Heart Rate-HRR) [11,12].…”

“…Indirect methods are related to the physiological responses that occur during the CPET, in which ventilatory thresholds I and II are determined. Usually, the two thresholds are at 50% and 80% of the maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2 max) [6,[11][12][13][14]. Due to the logistical and financial difficulties of performing the CPET, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) [14] established that the intensities of aerobic exercise should be by means of %VO 2 max, %HRmax and %reserve heart rate (HRR) combined with the perceived effort index [11,[14][15][16][17].…”