Validity of the Talk Test as a Method to Estimate Ventilatory Threshold and Guide Exercise Intensity in Cardiac Patients

Exercise intensity prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation: bridging the gap between best evidence and clinical practice

Optimizing endurance exercise intensity prescription is crucial to maximize the clinical benefits and minimize complications for individuals at risk for or with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, standardization remains incomplete due to variations in clinical guidelines. This review provides a practical and updated guide for health professionals on how to prescribe endurance exercise intensity for cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) populations, addressing international guidelines, practical applicability across diverse clinical settings and resource availabilities. In the context of CR, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is considered the gold standard assessment, and prescription based on ventilatory thresholds (VTs) is the preferable methodology. In settings where this approach isn't accessible, which is frequently the case in low-resource environments, approximating VTs involves combining objective assessments-ideally, exercise tests without gas exchange analyses, but at least alternative functional tests like the 6-minute walk test-with subjective methods for adjusting prescriptions, such as Borg's ratings of perceived exertion and the Talk Test. Therefore, enhancing exercise intensity prescription and offering personalized physical activity guidance to patients at risk for or with CVD rely on aligning workouts with individual physiological changes. A tailored prescription promotes a consistent and impactful exercise routine for enhancing health outcomes, considering patient preferences and motivations. Consequently, the selection and implementation of the best possible approach should consider available resources, with an ongoing emphasis on strategies to improve the delivery quality of exercise training in the context of FITT-VP prescription model (frequency, intensity, time, type, volume, and progression).

Next steps to advance general physical activity recommendations towards physical exercise prescription: a narrative review

Physical inactivity is a major health concern, associated with the development of several non-communicable diseases and with an increased mortality rate. Therefore, promoting active lifestyles has become a crucial public health necessity for enhancing overall health and quality of life. The WHO guidelines for physical activity (PA) present valuable contributions in this respect; however, we believe that greater specificity should be added or complemented towards physical exercise (PE) testing, prescription and programming in future recommendations. In this review article, we suggest simple and practical tools accessible to the entire population to improve the specificity of this approach, highlighting aspects of PE programming used by trained subjects. By adopting these suggestions, exercise professionals, clinicians and physical trainers can optimise the current general PA recommendations towards PE prescription to improve fitness status and encourage PE adherence in the general population.

A Clinical Guide for Assessment and Prescription of Exercise and Physical Activity in Cardiac Rehabilitation. A CSANZ Position Statement

Patients with cardiovascular disease benefit from cardiac rehabilitation, which includes structured exercise and physical activity as core components. This position statement provides pragmatic, evidence-based guidance for the assessment and prescription of exercise and physical activity for cardiac rehabilitation clinicians, recognising the latest international guidelines, scientific evidence and the increasing use of technology and virtual delivery methods. The patient-centred assessment and prescription of aerobic exercise, resistance exercise and physical activity have been addressed, including progression and safety considerations.

Summary and application of the WHO 2020 physical activity guidelines for patients with essential hypertension in primary care

The new World Health Organization (WHO) 2020 guidelines on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior include recommendations for adults with chronic conditions. The guidelines provide adaptable and general recommendations for people living with chronic medical conditions. This article summarizes the content and provides suggestions for the application of the guidelines for patients with essential hypertension in primary care. The WHO 2020 PA guidelines recommend broad advice for adults and older adults with chronic conditions. The key recommendations are consistent with other hypertension guidelines. A systemic approach to promote PA in primary care (i.e., PA assessment, safety considerations, PA prescription, behavioral counseling, and referral) along with applying the WHO guidelines is required. Health risk assessment and safety issues related to hypertension (e.g., current PA levels, level of blood pressure, treatment plans, comorbidities) should be concerned. The FITT Pro (frequency, intensity, time, type, and progression) can be adopted as a framework to break down the guidelines into specific PA prescription. The WHO 2020 PA guidelines address the importance of PA in clinical populations. The guidelines can be adapted for patients with hypertension in primary care settings.

Hierarchical framework to improve individualised exercise prescription in adults: a critical review

Physical activity (PA) guidelines for the general population are designed to mitigate the rise of chronic and debilitating diseases brought by inactivity and sedentariness. Although essential, they are insufficient as rates of cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, metabolic and other devastating and life-long diseases remain on the rise. This systemic failure supports the need for an improved exercise prescription approach that targets the individual. Significant interindividual variability of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) responses to exercise are partly explained by biological and methodological factors, and the modulation of exercise volume and intensity seem to be key in improving prescription guidelines. The use of physiological thresholds, such as lactate, ventilation, as well as critical power, have demonstrated excellent results to improve CRF in those struggling to respond to the current homogenous prescription of exercise. However, assessing physiological thresholds requires laboratory resources and expertise and is incompatible for a general population approach. A case must be made that balances the effectiveness of an exercise programme to improve CRF and accessibility of resources. A population-wide approach of exercise prescription guidelines should include free and accessible self-assessed threshold tools, such as rate of perceived exertion, where the homeostatic perturbation induced by exercise reflects physiological thresholds. The present critical review outlines factors for individuals exercise prescription and proposes a new theoretical hierarchal framework to help shape PA guidelines based on accessibility and effectiveness as part of a personalised exercise prescription that targets the individual.

An Examination and Critique of Subjective Methods to Determine Exercise Intensity: The Talk Test, Feeling Scale, and Rating of Perceived Exertion

Prescribing exercise intensity is crucial in achieving an adequate training stimulus. While numerous objective methods exist and are used in practical settings for exercise intensity prescription, they all require anchor measurements that are derived from a maximal or submaximal graded exercise test or a series of submaximal or supramaximal exercise bouts. Conversely, self-reported subjective methods such as the Talk Test (TT), Feeling Scale (FS) affect rating, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) do not require exercise testing prior to commencement of the exercise training and therefore appear as more practical tools for exercise intensity prescription. This review is intended to provide basic information on reliability and construct validity of the TT, FS, and RPE measurements to delineate intensity domains. The TT and RPE appear to be valid measures of both the ventilatory threshold and the respiratory compensation threshold. Although not specifically examined, the FS showed tendency to demarcate ventilatory threshold, but its validity to demarcate the respiratory compensation threshold is limited. Equivocal stage of the TT, RPE of 10-11, and FS ratings between fairly good (+ 1) and good (+ 3) are reflective of the ventilatory threshold, while negative stage of the TT, RPE of 13-15, and FS ratings around neutral (0) are reflective of the respiratory compensation threshold. The TT and RPE can effectively be used to elicit homeostatic disturbances consistent with the moderate, heavy, and severe intensity domains, while physiological responses to constant FS ratings show extensive variability around ventilatory threshold to be considered effective in demarcating transition between moderate and heavy intensity domains.

Exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation and beyond: why and how: a position statement from the Secondary Prevention and Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology

A proper determination of the exercise intensity is important for the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) since it affects the effectiveness and medical safety of exercise training. In 2013, the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC), together with the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation, published a position statement on aerobic exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR). Since this publication, many subsequent papers were published concerning the determination of the exercise intensity in CR, in which some controversies were revealed and some of the commonly applied concepts were further refined. Moreover, how to determine the exercise intensity during resistance training was not covered in this position paper. In light of these new findings, an update on how to determine the exercise intensity for patients with CVD is mandatory, both for aerobic and resistance exercises. In this EAPC position paper, it will be explained in detail which objective and subjective methods for CR exercise intensity determination exist for aerobic and resistance training, together with their (dis)advantages and practical applications.