IJCS | Volume 31, Nº4, July / August 2018

397 Macedo et al. Periodized model for prescribed exercises Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2018;31(4)393-404 Original Article the TZ1 was the interval between 100 and 115 bpm, and the TZ2 between 115 to 130 bmp. After the 18 th session, the interval training commenced, corresponding to 2 minutes of intensity in AHR and 1 minute in HRVT2. Thus, the difference between the models of the AT proposed was based on the progression of load, that is, pre-determined in PG (18 th session), regulated by the increase of HR of training and change within the TZ (TZ1 for TZ2), whereas in NPG, the intensity was regulated only by patient, always between TZ1 and TZ2 (Table 1). The patients of NPG and PG trained with a conventional HR monitor (Oregon model HR102). Additionally, the instructors check regularly the HR with finger oximeters (Nonin). It is important to emphasize that coronarypatients at low risk for the practice of exercises were reminded to train between the ventilatory thresholds, following the recommendation of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology. 3 Throughout the 36 training sessions of the NPG, the safety criteria for training and the intensity limits were respected, the loads for RT varied from 30% to 50% of the 1RM test, and the TZ limits for AT were also respected. Moreover, the volume of training was maintained, carrying out three sets of 15 repetitions for each localized exercise and a maximum time of 40 minutes of AT after the 10 th session. These limits were presented to the patients, who defined their ideal training loads themselves according to their comfort zone and received orientation from the instructor regarding the implementation of the movements. In the PG the prescription of their exercises was periodized. This group performed the same volume of training with the same intensity intervals prescribed for the NPG, but with the prescription organized by time. Thus, three training macrocycles were created, the first known as adaptation (MAD), the second as fundamental (MFU) and the third as specific (MSP). Each macrocycle, which presented a different objective, was composed of 12 microcycles and each microcycle was defined as a group of three classes or training sessions. The objective ofMADwas to improve neuromuscular coordination and cardiopulmonary adaptation. The objective of MFUwas to improve the ventilatory threshold and muscle fiber recruitment. And the objective of MSP was to improve VO 2 peak (Figure 2) and resistance strength. Data analysis The results obtained in this study were expressed as means, medians, minimum andmaximum and standard deviations (quantitative variables) or frequencies and percentages (qualitative variables). The data were tested through normal distribution using the Kolmogorov- Smirnov test. The groups were compared regarding the quantitative variables using Student t test for dependent samples orMann-Whitney nonparametric test. Regarding the qualitative variables, the comparisons were made considering Fisher exact test or chi-square test. Student t test was used to compare the moments of evaluation in the case of paired samples or nonparametric Wilcoxon test. In order to compare the groups and the evaluation moments (initial x final), a variance analysis model with a repeated measurements factor (split-plot) was considered. All variables which presented significant interaction between group and evaluationmoment were analyzed by comparing the groups at each moment, and the evaluation moments within each group, where values for p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. The data were analyzed using the Statistica V 8.0 program. Results Baseline characteristics One NPG patient and another from the PG did not complete the 36 exercise sessions. As a consequence, a total of 60 patients (NPGn= 32 andPGn= 28)were reevaluated. Table 2 provides the baseline characteristics of the 60 patients who met the inclusion criteria. All variables evaluated had a normal distribution (Kolmogorov- Smirnov test, p > 0.05) (Table 2). Adverse events during treatment period No significant adverse events were registered during the training period. Body composition parameters No significant differences were observed between groups. However, there was a significant difference within the groups in all variables in PG and only in %fat above ideal in NPG (Table 3). Cardiopulmonary testing There was no significant difference between baseline values for all cardiopulmonary variables between the two groups. However, significant post-training changes were observed in functional capacity (FCR) reached, VO 2 peak andVO 2 for the VT1 andVT2, with superior training