ArticlePloS one2024
Perceived exertion can be lower when exercising in field versus indoors.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rating of perceived exertion in continuous sports: a scoping review with evidence gap map.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStudies indicate that the rated perceived exertion (RPE) during physical exercise can be lower in field environments than indoors. The environmental conditions of those studies are explored. Furthermore, we study if the same phenomenon is valid when cycling indoors versus in cycle commuting environments with high levels of stimuli from both traffic and suburban-urban elements.
methodsTwenty commuter cyclists underwent measurements of heart rate (HR) and oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2) and RPE assessments for breathing and legs, respectively, while cycling in both laboratory and field conditions. A validated mobile metabolic system was used in the field to measure [Formula: see text]O2. Three submaximal cycle ergometer workloads in the laboratory were used to establish linear regression equations between RPE and % of HR reserve (%HRR) and %[Formula: see text]O2max, separately. Based on these equations, RPE from the laboratory was predicted and compared with RPE levels at the participants' individual cycle commutes at equal intensities. The same approach was used to predict field intensities and for comparisons with corresponding measured intensities at equal RPE levels.
resultsThe predicted RPE levels based on the laboratory cycling were significantly higher than the RPE levels in cycle commuting at equal intensities (67% of HRR; 65% of [Formula: see text]O2max). For breathing, the mean RPE levels were; 14.0-14.2 in the laboratory and 12.6 in the field. The corresponding levels for legs were; 14.0-14.2 and 11.5. The range of predicted field intensities in terms of %HRR and %[Formula: see text]O2max was 46-56%, which corresponded to median differences of 19-30% compared to the measured intensities in field at equal RPE.
conclusionThe cycle commuters perceived a lower exertion during their cycle commutes compared to ergometer cycling in a laboratory at equal exercise intensities. This may be due to a higher degree of external stimuli in field, although influences from other possible causes cannot be ruled out.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.