Is a threshold-based model a superior method to the relative percent concept for establishing individual exercise intensity? a randomized controlled trial

Table 2 Prescribed and actual exercise intensity for HRR and ACE-3ZM groups throughout the 12weeks exercise intervention

	HRR Group (n = 12)			ACE-3ZM Group (n = 12)
Week	Prescribed intensity	THR	Actual HR	Prescribed intensity	THR	Actual HR
1	40-45 % HRR	109 ± 15 to 116 ± 15	113 ± 15	HR < VT1	126 ± 13 to 136 ± 13	131 ± 16
2	40-45 % HRR	109 ± 15 to 116 ± 15	115 ± 13	HR < VT1	126 ± 13 to 136 ± 13	133 ± 12
3	40-45 % HRR	109 ± 15 to 116 ± 15	113 ± 15	HR < VT1	126 ± 13 to 136 ± 13	131 ± 13
4	40-45 % HRR	109 ± 15 to 116 ± 15	112 ± 13	HR < VT1	126 ± 13 to 136 ± 13	135 ± 12
5-6	50-55 % HRR	116 ± 14 to 121 ± 15	118 ± 14	HR ≥ VT1 to < VT2	137 ± 12 to 147 ± 15	141 ± 9
7-8	50-55 % HRR	117 ± 16 to 125 ± 16	123 ± 16	HR ≥ VT1 to < VT2	140 ± 14 to 151 ± 13	145 ± 14
9-12	60-65 % HRR	127 ± 16 to 133 ± 16	132 ± 16	HR ≥ VT2	153 ± 9 to 161 ± 10	155 ± 11

Values are mean ± SD. HR heart rate, HRR heart rate reserve, THR target heart rate, VT1 first ventilatory threshold, VT2 second ventilatory threshold

ISSN: 2052-1847