Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, UT, USA.
Sports Med. 2020 Oct;50(10):1729-1756. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01322-8.
Prescribing the frequency, duration, or volume of training is simple as these factors can be altered by manipulating the number of exercise sessions per week, the duration of each session, or the total work performed in a given time frame (e.g., per week). However, prescribing exercise intensity is complex and controversy exists regarding the reliability and validity of the methods used to determine and prescribe intensity. This controversy arises from the absence of an agreed framework for assessing the construct validity of different methods used to determine exercise intensity. In this review, we have evaluated the construct validity of different methods for prescribing exercise intensity based on their ability to provoke homeostatic disturbances (e.g., changes in oxygen uptake kinetics and blood lactate) consistent with the moderate, heavy, and severe domains of exercise. Methods for prescribing exercise intensity include a percentage of anchor measurements, such as maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), maximum heart rate (HR), and maximum work rate (i.e., power or velocity-[Formula: see text] or [Formula: see text], respectively), derived from a graded exercise test (GXT). However, despite their common use, it is apparent that prescribing exercise intensity based on a fixed percentage of these maximal anchors has little merit for eliciting distinct or domain-specific homeostatic perturbations. Some have advocated using submaximal anchors, including the ventilatory threshold (VT), the gas exchange threshold (GET), the respiratory compensation point (RCP), the first and second lactate threshold (LT and LT), the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS), critical power (CP), and critical speed (CS). There is some evidence to support the validity of LT, GET, and VT to delineate the moderate and heavy domains of exercise. However, there is little evidence to support the validity of most commonly used methods, with exception of CP and CS, to delineate the heavy and severe domains of exercise. As acute responses to exercise are not always predictive of chronic adaptations, training studies are required to verify whether different methods to prescribe exercise will affect adaptations to training. Better ways to prescribe exercise intensity should help sport scientists, researchers, clinicians, and coaches to design more effective training programs to achieve greater improvements in health and athletic performance.
规定训练的频率、持续时间或强度很简单，因为这些因素可以通过改变每周的锻炼次数、每次锻炼的持续时间或在给定时间内完成的总工作量来改变（例如每周）。然而，规定运动强度很复杂，并且关于确定和规定强度的方法的可靠性和有效性存在争议。这种争议源于缺乏评估用于确定运动强度的不同方法的结构有效性的共识框架。在本综述中，我们根据不同方法确定运动强度的能力来评估其结构有效性，这些方法可以引起稳态干扰（例如，摄氧量动力学和血乳酸的变化），与运动的中等、大强度和极强度域一致。规定运动强度的方法包括百分比的锚定点测量，例如最大摄氧量（[Formula: see text]）、峰值摄氧量（[Formula: see text]）、最大心率（HR）和最大做功率（即功率或速度-[Formula: see text]或[Formula: see text]，分别），源自递增负荷运动试验（GXT）。然而，尽管它们的使用很普遍，但显然基于这些最大锚定点的固定百分比来规定运动强度几乎没有价值，因为它无法引起明显或特定域的稳态干扰。一些人主张使用次最大锚定点，包括通气阈（VT）、气体交换阈（GET）、呼吸补偿点（RCP）、第一和第二乳酸阈（LT 和 LT）、最大乳酸稳态（MLSS）、临界功率（CP）和临界速度（CS）。有一些证据支持 LT、GET 和 VT 来划分运动的中高强度域的有效性。然而，很少有证据支持大多数常用方法（除了 CP 和 CS）来划分运动的高强度和极强度域的有效性。由于运动的急性反应并不总是预测慢性适应，因此需要进行训练研究来验证不同的运动强度规定方法是否会影响对训练的适应。更好的规定运动强度的方法应该有助于运动科学家、研究人员、临床医生和教练设计更有效的训练计划，以实现健康和运动表现的更大改善。
