English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is clear evidence regarding the health benefits of physical activity. These benefits follow a dose-response relationship with a particular respect to exercise intensity. Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription have been established to provide optimal standards for exercise training. A wide range of intensities is used to prescribe exercise, but this approach is limited. Usually percentages of maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2)) or heart rate (HR) are applied to set exercise training intensity but this approach yields substantially variable metabolic and cardiocirculatory responses. Heterogeneous acute responses and training effects are explained by the nonuniform heart rate performance curve during incremental exercise which significantly alters the calculations of %HR(max) and %HRR target HR data. Similar limitations hold true for using %VO(2max) and %VO(2)R. The solution of these shortcomings is to strictly apply objective submaximal markers such as thresholds or turn points and to tailor exercise training within defined regions.

Special Needs to Prescribe Exercise Intensity for Scientific Studies