REVIEW PAPER
Validity of the Borg 6–20 categories obtegories obtained in incremental testing for prescribing aerobic exercise intensity: a systematic review
1
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
2
Department of Sports Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
3
Department of Sports Sciences, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Submission date: 2021-08-07
Acceptance date: 2022-02-08
Publication date: 2022-04-26
Hum Mov. 2023;24(1):46-55
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Self-regulation of exercise intensity with the Borg 6–20 scale seems a promising alternative, since the magnitude of effort is regulated by internal factors inherent to the individual and their perception of effort during the activity. In order to verify this hypothesis, some studies have tested the validity of the Borg 6–20 scale for prescribing exercise intensity. The study aim was to review the literature and verify the validity of the Borg 6–20 scale in aerobic exercise prescription.
Methods:
The PICOS strategy was used to conduct the search for evidence concerning the objectives of the review as recommended by PRISMA-P. The level and quality of evidence were analysed by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendation for systematic reviews.
Results:
A total of 1434 references were found. After applying the criteria of inclusion, 15 studies were considered eligible for review. These studies generally tested the validity of intensity-regulated prescriptions with rating of perceived exertion (RPE) by comparing physiological and performance measures obtained in incremental tests or conventional prescriptions with the measures generated by prescriptions regulated with the Borg 6–20 scale. In addition, some studies evaluated the reliability and reproducibility of RPE-regulated prescriptions by comparing physiological and performance measures obtained from different intensity-regulated exercise sessions with the Borg 6–20 scale.
Conclusions:
According to the studies investigated in this systematic review, the recommendation of the Borg 6–20 scale in exercise prescription is not yet a valid alternative to describe similar intensity magnitudes to physiological and performance variables.
Self-regulation of exercise intensity with the Borg 6–20 scale seems a promising alternative, since the magnitude of effort is regulated by internal factors inherent to the individual and their perception of effort during the activity. In order to verify this hypothesis, some studies have tested the validity of the Borg 6–20 scale for prescribing exercise intensity. The study aim was to review the literature and verify the validity of the Borg 6–20 scale in aerobic exercise prescription.
Methods:
The PICOS strategy was used to conduct the search for evidence concerning the objectives of the review as recommended by PRISMA-P. The level and quality of evidence were analysed by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendation for systematic reviews.
Results:
A total of 1434 references were found. After applying the criteria of inclusion, 15 studies were considered eligible for review. These studies generally tested the validity of intensity-regulated prescriptions with rating of perceived exertion (RPE) by comparing physiological and performance measures obtained in incremental tests or conventional prescriptions with the measures generated by prescriptions regulated with the Borg 6–20 scale. In addition, some studies evaluated the reliability and reproducibility of RPE-regulated prescriptions by comparing physiological and performance measures obtained from different intensity-regulated exercise sessions with the Borg 6–20 scale.
Conclusions:
According to the studies investigated in this systematic review, the recommendation of the Borg 6–20 scale in exercise prescription is not yet a valid alternative to describe similar intensity magnitudes to physiological and performance variables.
REFERENCES (37)
1.
Lambert EV, St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Complex systems model of fatigue: integrative homoeostatic control of peripheral physiological systems during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(1):52–62; doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.011247.
2.
Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV. From catastrophe to complexity: a novel model of integrative central neural regulation of effort and fatigue during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(4):511–514; doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.009860.
3.
Marcora SM. Do we really need a central governor to explain brain regulation of exercise performance? Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;104(5):929–931; author reply 933–935; doi: 10.1007/s00421-008-0818-3.
4.
Soylu Y, Arslan E, Sogut M, Kilit B, Clemente FM. Effects of self-paced high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training on the physical performance and psychophysiological responses in recreationally active young adults. Biol Sport. 2021;38(4):555–562; doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2021.100359.
5.
Tiggemann CL, Dias CP, Radaelli R, Massa JC, Bortoluzzi R, Wolf Schoenell MC, et al. Effect of traditional resistance and power training using rated perceived exertion for enhancement of muscle strength, power, and functional performance. Age. 2016;38(2):42; doi: 10.1007/s11357-016-9904-3.
6.
Johnson EC, Pryor RR, Casa DJ, Ellis LA, Maresh CM, Pescatello LS, et al. Precision, accuracy, and performance outcomes of perceived exertion vs. heart rate guided run-training. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(3):630–637; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001541.
7.
Parfitt G, Evans H, Eston R. Perceptually regulated training at RPE13 is pleasant and improves physical health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1613–1618; doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31824d266e.
8.
Dunbar CC, Kalinski MI. Using RPE to regulate exercise intensity during a 20-week training program for postmenopausal women: a pilot study. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;99(2):688–690; doi: 10.2466/pms.99.2.688-690.
9.
Maciel DG, Cerqueira MS, Gabbett TJ, Elsangedy HM, de Brito Vieira WH. Should we trust perceived effort for loading control and resistance exercise prescription after ACL reconstruction? Sports Health. 2021;19417381211041289; doi: 10.1177/19417381211041289.
10.
Viana AA, Fernandes B, Alvarez C, Guimarães GV, Ciolac EG. Prescribing high-intensity interval exercise by RPE in individuals with type 2 diabetes: metabolic and hemodynamic responses. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2019;44(4):348–356; doi: 10.1139/apnm-2018-0371.
11.
Alberts JL, Rosenfeldt AB. The universal prescription for Parkinson’s disease: exercise. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020;10(s1):21–27; doi: 10.3233/JPD-202100.
12.
Carvalho VO, Bocchi EA, Guimarães GV. The Borg scale as an important tool of self-monitoring and selfregulation of exercise prescription in heart failure patients during hydrotherapy. A randomized blinded controlled trial. Circ J. 2009;73(10):1871–1876; doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-09-0333.
13.
Gondoni LA, Nibbio F, Caetani G, Augello G, Titon AM. What are we measuring? Considerations on subjective ratings of perceived exertion in obese patients for exercise prescription in cardiac rehabilitation programs. Int J Cardiol. 2010;140(2):236–238; doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.11.068.
14.
Tabet J-Y, Meurin P, Teboul F, Tartiere J-M, Weber H, Renaud N, et al. Determination of exercise training level in coronary artery disease patients on beta blockers. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(1):67–72; doi: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3282eff61f.
15.
Weiser PC, Wojciechowicz V, Funck A, Robertson RJ. Perceived effort step-up procedure for self-regulating stationary cycle exercise intensity by patients with cardiovascular disease. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104(1):236–253; doi: 10.2466/pms.104.1.236-253.
16.
Aamot I-L, Forbord SH, Karlsen T, Støylen A. Does rating of perceived exertion result in target exercise intensity during interval training in cardiac rehabilitation? A study of the Borg scale versus a heart rate monitor. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(5):541–545; doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.07.019.
17.
Ilarraza H, Myers J, Kottman W, Rickli H, Dubach P. An evaluation of training responses using self-regulation in a residential rehabilitation program. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2004;24(1):27–33; doi: 10.1097/00008483-200401000-00006.
18.
Kirkham AA, Campbell KL, McKenzie DC. Comparison of aerobic exercise intensity prescription methods in breast cancer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(8):1443–1450; doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182895195.
19.
Dunbar CC, Robertson RJ, Baun R, Blandin MF, Metz K, Burdett R, et al. The validity of regulating exercise intensity by ratings of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(1):94–99; doi: 10.1249/00005768-199201000-00016.
20.
Dunbar CC, Goris C, Michielli DW, Kalinski MI. Accuracy and reproducibility of an exercise prescription based on ratings of perceived exertion for treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;78(3 Pt 2):1335–1344; doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.78.3c.1335.
21.
Glass SC, Knowlton RG, Becque MD. Accuracy of RPE from graded exercise to establish exercise training intensity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(11):1303–1307.
22.
Kang J, Chaloupka EC, Mastrangelo MA, Donnelly MS, Martz WP, Robertson RJ. Regulating exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion during arm and leg ergometry. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;78(3):241–246; doi: 10.1007/s004210050414.
23.
Kang J, Chaloupka EC, Biren GB, Mastrangelo MA, Hoffman JR. Regulating intensity using perceived exertion: effect of exercise duration. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;105(3):445–451; doi: 10.1007/s00421-008-0922-4.
24.
Marriott HE, Lamb KL. The use of ratings of perceived exertion for regulating exercise levels in rowing ergometry. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;72(3):267–271; doi: 10.1007/BF00838650.
25.
Ward DS, Bar-Or O. Use of the Borg scale in exercise prescription for overweight youth. Can J Sport Sci. 1990;15(2):120–125.
26.
Ciolac EG, Mantuani SS, Neiva CM, Verardi CEL, Pessôa-Filho DM, Pimenta L. Rating of perceived exertion as a tool for prescribing and self regulating interval training: a pilot study. Biol Sport. 2015;32(2):103–108; doi: 10.5604/20831862.1134312.
27.
Goosey-Tolfrey V, Lenton J, Goddard J, Oldfield V, Tolfrey K, Eston R. Regulating intensity using perceived exertion in spinal cord-injured participants. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(3):608–613; doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181b72cbc.
28.
Paulson TAW, Bishop NC, Leicht CA, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Perceived exertion as a tool to self-regulate exercise in individuals with tetraplegia. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(1):201–209; doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2426-5.
29.
Dishman RK. Prescribing exercise intensity for healthy adults using perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26(9):1087–1094; doi: 10.1249/00005768-199409000-00004.
30.
Birk TJ, Birk CA. Use of ratings of perceived exertion for exercise prescription. Sports Med. 1987;4(1):1–8; doi: 10.2165/00007256-198704010-00001.
31.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1; doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
32.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928; doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
33.
Hartshorn JEO, Lamb KL. The reproducibility of perceptually regulated exercise responses during short-term cycle ergometry. Int J Sports Med. 2004;25(5):362–367; doi: 10.1055/s-2004-815840.
34.
Eston RG, Williams JG. Reliability of ratings of perceived effort regulation of exercise intensity. Br J Sports Med. 1988;22(4):153–155; doi: 10.1136/bjsm.22.4.153.
35.
Smutok MA, Skrinar GS, Pandolf KB. Exercise intensity: subjective regulation by perceived exertion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980;61(12):569–574.
36.
Marçal IR, Falqueiro PG, Fernandes B, Ngomane AY, Amaral VT, Guimarães GV, et al. Prescribing high-intensity interval exercise by rating of perceived exertion in young individuals. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2021;61(6):797–802; doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.11449-X.
37.
O’Grady C, Passfield L, Hopker JG. Variability in submaximal self-paced exercise bouts of different intensity and duration. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(12):1824–1833; doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0785.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
