Indoor Cycling Energy Expenditure: Does Sequence Matter?

Cristina Cortis, Andrea Fusco, Mitchell Cook, Scott T. Doberstein, Cordial Gillette, John P. Porcari and Carl Foster
Additional contact information
Cristina Cortis: Department of Human Sciences, Society and Health, University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, 03043 Cassino, Italy
Andrea Fusco: Department of Human Sciences, Society and Health, University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, 03043 Cassino, Italy
Mitchell Cook: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
Scott T. Doberstein: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
Cordial Gillette: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
John P. Porcari: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA
Carl Foster: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 3, 1-8

Abstract: Although cycling class intensity can be modified by changing interval intensity sequencing, it has not been established whether the intensity order can alter physiological and perceptual responses. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effects of interval intensity sequencing on energy expenditure (EE), physiological markers, and perceptual responses during indoor cycling. Healthy volunteers (10 males = 20.0 ± 0.8years; 8 females = 21.3 ± 2.7years) completed three randomly ordered interval bouts (mixed pyramid—MP, ascending intervals—AI, descending intervals—DI) including three 3-min work bouts at 50%, 75%, and 100% of peak power output (PPO) and three 3-min recovery periods at 25% PPO. Heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) were expressed as percentages of maximal HR (%HR max ) and VO 2 (%VO 2max ). EE was computed for both the work bout and for the 5-min recovery period. Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE) and Exercise Enjoyment Scale (EES) were recorded. No differences emerged for % HR max (MP = 73.3 ± 6.1%; AI = 72.1 ± 4.9%; DI = 71.8 ± 4.5%), % VO 2max (MP = 51.8 ± 4.6%; AI = 51.4 ± 3.9%; DI = 51.3 ± 4.5%), EE (MP = 277.5 ± 39.9 kcal; AI = 275.8 ± 39.4 kcal; DI = 274.9 ± 42.1 kcal), EES (MP = 4.9 ± 1.0; AI = 5.3 ± 1.1; DI = 4.9 ± 0.9), and sRPE (MP = 4.9 ± 1.0; AI = 5.3 ± 1.1; DI = 4.9 ± 0.9). EE during recovery was significantly ( p < 0.005) lower after DI (11.9 ± 3.2 kcal) with respect to MP (13.2 ± 2.5 kcal) and AI (13.3 ± 2.5 kcal). Although lower EE was observed during recovery in DI, interval intensity sequencing does not affect overall EE, physiological markers, and perceptual responses.

Keywords: physiological markers; perceptual responses; sRPE; high intensity interval training; intensity sequencing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/870/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/870/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:870-:d:483759

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().