Search

Background: Physical exercise programs are typically composed of activities directed to the development of different physical abilities, usually stimulated in the same session. Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the effect of one session of aerobic exercise at high intensity to 1% and 10% gradient on the height (HJump) and kinematics of the depth jump (PExc - eccentric, concentric phase PCon, and contact time – CT). Methods: Twenty-five moderately trained men (VO2Max 53.2 ± 4.3 mL.kg-1.min-1) attended five visits in the laboratory. Familiarity with the procedures in depth jump, VO2Max measures and their velocity associated (VVO2Max), and time to exhaustion performance (TLim) were performed at two initial visits. Results: On the three subsequent visits, the volunteers were subjected to three maximum depth jumps before and 10 min after the following conditions: (1) running intervals at high intensity of 10% gradient (R10%), (2) at 1% gradient (R1%), and control condition (CON). The order of conditions was determined randomly. A running condition did not induce significant changes from HJump (R1% 1.1% vs 1.0% R10%) when expressed as percentage difference from the CON condition. The PExc, PCon, and CT also did not change after running sessions (P> 0.05). None of the intervals running strategies were able to generate significant change in height and kinematics of the vertical depth jump. Conclusion: The prescription of the running at VVO2Max in 1% or 10% gradient does not seem to lead to concurrent effect, is suggested to ensure the concomitant development of maximal aerobic power and explosive strength.

Backgroung: The literature provides support for several different method by which it is possible to quantify, prescribe and control the aerobic workload. Objective: To compare physiological and the affective response among training methods prescribed by VO2 reserve, HR reserve, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) self-adjusted. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.