Hannah Sutton1, Heontae Kim2, Wei Sun1, Mary Malaska1, Bridget Miller1and Ho Han1 1Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK; 2The University of Mississippi, University, MS

Currently there are several methods available to prescribe the recommended intensity of physical activity (i.e., moderate-and vigorous-intensity). To maximize compliance, it is required for the prescriptions to be simple, practical, and precise. In addition, individual preference for the physical activity prescriptions is a key component to ensure compliance with the prescriptions. PURPOSE: To identify individual preference for currently available methods for maintaining a prescribed physical activity intensity. METHODS: Forty healthy adult individuals (age 18-65 yrs; 20 female) participated in the study. The participants performed a 2-min trial(walking & running)according to each prescription(both moderate-and vigorous-intensity) and conducted a prepared questionnaire. The physical activity prescriptions herein included: (1) Rating of Perceived Exertion(RPE), (2) Talk Test(TT), (3) Heart Rate (HR), and (4) Real-Time Cadence (RC). Preference for the prescriptions was assessed by three domains including: (1) easy-to-understand the prescription, (2) easy-to-perform the prescribed activity, and (3) easy-to-maintain the prescribed intensity for a given duration. For each domain, the prescriptions were ranked in order of individual preference and scored 4 (highest) to1 (lowest)corresponding to the rank. Descriptive statistics and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance were conducted for comparison for preferences of exercise prescription methods. RESULTS: For domain 1, RC had the highest average score of 3.55/4.00 followed by HR (3.02), TT (1.87), and RPE (1.55), and the score was significantly higher than others (p<.001). For domain 2, RC also received the highest score (3.46/4.00) followed by HR (2.43), TT (2.10), and RPE (2.00). The average score was significantly higher than other methods (p<.01). For domain 3,the highest score was found in RC (3.22/4.00) followed by TT (2.47), and HR/RPE (2.15 for both). A significant difference was found between RC and other methods (p<.01). CONCLUSION: RC was the most favored by the participants in all domains. In other words, RC was considered as the easiest method to understand, to perform the prescribed activity and to maintain the prescribed intensity for a given duration. Further work is warranted to compare the accuracy of each method.

This document is currently not available here.