Content uploaded by Tommy Boone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tommy Boone on Nov 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
(JEPonline)
Volume 12 Number 1 February 2009
Managing Editor
Tommy Boone, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief
Jon K. Linderman, Ph.D.
Review Board
Todd Astorino, Ph.D.
Julien Baker, Ph.D.
Tommy Boone, Ph.D.
Lance Dalleck, Ph.D.
Dan Drury, DPE.
Hermann Engals, Ph.D.
Eric Goulet, Ph.D.
Robert Gotshall, Ph.D.
M. Knight-Maloney,Ph.D.
Len Kravitz, Ph.D.
James Laskin, Ph.D.
Derek Marks, Ph.D.
Cristine Mermier, Ph.D.
Daryl Parker, Ph.D.
Robert Robergs, Ph.D.
Brent Ruby, Ph.D.
Jason Siegler, Ph.D.
Greg Tardie, Ph.D.
Chantal Vella, Ph.D.
Lesley White, Ph.D.
Ben Zhou, Ph.D.
Official Research Journal of
the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists
(ASEP)
ISSN 1097-9751
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
Systems Physiology - Cardiopulmonary
CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSES TO MUSIC TEMPO
DURING STEADY-STATE EXERCISE
LARRY BIRNBAUM1, TOMMY BOONE1, BETH HUSCHLE1
Exercise Physiology Laboratory/Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica,Duluth, MN, USA
ABSTRACT
Birnbaum L, Huschle B, and Boone T. Cardiovascular responses to
music tempo during steady-state exercise. JEPonline 2009; 12(1):50-56.
This study compared the effects of fast and slow music on
cardiovascular and hemodynamic responses during submaximal
treadmill exercise. Six males and five females completed three, 15-
minute steady-state exercise sessions jogging at 5.5 mph at 0% grade
while listening to fast music (Treatment 1), slow music (Treatment 2),
and no music (Control). An ANOVA with repeated measures was used
to compare the three conditions, and a post hoc Scheffe test was
performed to determine which groups differed (p<.05). Oxygen
consumption (VO2), cardiac output (Q), stroke volume (SV), minute
ventilation (VE), and frequency of breaths (Fb) significantly increased
while listening to fast music compared to the slow music and no music.
Systemic vascular resistance (SVR) significantly decreased while
listening to fast music compared to slow music and no music. These
findings suggest that listening to fast music during steady-state treadmill
exercise produces cardiovascular and respiratory responses that are
significantly different from how the body responds to the same exercise
intensity when listing to slow or no music. The data indicate that
listening to fast music decreased the subjects’ cardiovascular efficiency
since the subjects were able to perform the same steady-state treadmill
exercise with either slow music or no music with a lower SV, Q, and VO2.
Key Words: Music Cadence, Oxygen Consumption, Cardiac Output,
Hemodynamic Responses, Submaximal Exercise.
INTRODUCTION
50
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
While music has been used as therapy for centuries (1,2), it has only recently been used to augment
athletic performance (3). In fact, it has become common practice to listen to music while exercising.
Reasons for doing so may include improved athletic performance or simply a more enjoyable
recreational experience.
Several investigators have examined the physiological effects of music, and a few have studied music
tempo specifically. It has been asserted that fast tempo music helps runners psychologically (4) and
that sedative music elicits a relaxation response (5). However, studies that have measured
physiological responses to music of different tempos have not observed consistent results. Edworthy
and Waring (6) found a significant increase in heart rate (HR) while listening to fast music during
exercise compared with listening to slow music. Conversely, Schwartz, Fernhall, and Plowman (7)
did not find any difference in exercise HR. Interestingly, Yamamoto, Ohkuwa, Itoh, Kitoh, Terasawa,
Tsuda et al. (8) reported significantly lower plasma norepinephrine concentrations in subjects listening
to slow music, but other studies have not shown physiological decreases while listening to slow,
sedative music during exercise (4,9).
The contradictory findings may be due in part to variations in experimental design, such as
differences in exercise mode, intensity, and duration. The type of music selected and the manner in
which it was selected have also varied among the studies. Additionally, subjects differed in age,
health and physical conditioning.
Another issue of concern with previous studies on music tempo and exercise is the relative lack of
physiological variables measured. Most studies have measured only two to three variables, such as
HR, systolic blood pressure (SBP), or rating of perceived exertion (RPE). It seems apparent that if
more variables are examined, a more comprehensive assessment of the physiological responses to
music can be ascertained.
Given the limited physiological evaluation of the effects of music on exercise in previous studies as
well as the mixed findings, this study sought to acquire a better understanding of the cardiovascular
responses to fast and slow music during steady-state treadmill exercise.
METHODS
Subjects
Eleven healthy college-aged students volunteered to participate in this investigation. None of the
subjects was on any medication. After reporting to the laboratory, the subjects’ body weight and
height were determined in a standardized fashion. Their characteristics are in Table 1. Prior to
testing, each subject gave written informed consent to participate. All subjects understood they could
withdraw from the study at any time. This study was approved by the Human Subjects Review Board
of St. Scholastica. All subjects were instructed to refrain from eating or consuming caffeine for 4
hours prior to testing and to abstain from exercising for 24 hours prior to testing. Each testing session
took place at approximately the same time of day for each subject and sessions were separated by at
least 48 hours.
Experimental Protocol and Calculations
The research design consisted of three experimental conditions while jogging at 5.5 mph at 0%
grade. Each subject was tested three times under the same laboratory conditions. Treatment 1 (Fast
Music) consisted of listening to four fast-paced popular songs. For Treatment 2 (Slow Music), the
subjects listened to four slow songs (Table 2).
51
Table 2. Music selections.
Treatment 1 (Fast Music) Treatment 2 (Slow Music)
Low - Flo Rida featuring T-Pain
Don’t Stop the Music - Rihanna
See You Again - Miley Cyrus
Paralyzer - Finger Eleven
Here’s to the Night - Eve 6
Superman - Five for Fighting
Only Time - Enya
Running - No Doubt
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
Oxygen consumption and ventilation.
Using headphones, the subjects listened to music from an Insignia MP3 player. A Trackmaster, Jas
Fitness Systems treadmill was used for the submaximal treadmill test. A MedGraphics CardiO2
metabolic analyzer, which was calibrated before each test, was used to measure the subjects’ steady-
state oxygen consumption (VO2), expired carbon dioxide (VCO2), frequency of breaths (Fb), and
minute ventilation (VE). Respiratory exchange ratio was determined by dividing VCO2 by VO2. The
two treatments (Fast Music and Slow Music) and the control (No Music) sessions were applied in
random order after a 5-minute rest period. Subjects jogged on the treadmill at 5.5 mph for 15 minutes
while listening to the music the entire time. This speed was chosen because it approximated 85% of
the subjects’ maximum heart rate. The exercise intensity (percent) was consistent with the subjects’
earlier indications of their exercise intensity.
Heart rate and blood pressure.
Using a Polar HR monitor to determine heart rate (HR), the subjects’ HR responses were collected
during 6 consecutive minutes starting at minute 7 of exercise. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was
determined as the appearance of Korotkoff sounds, while the point of disappearance of these sounds
was considered to be the diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Systemic vascular resistance (SVR) was
estimated by dividing MAP [DBP + .33 (pulse pressure)] by cardiac output (Q). Blood pressure was
collected during minute 13.
Cardiac output.
The indirect Fick principle was used to estimate Q at steady-state exercise. This method allows for
the noninvasive estimation of exercise Q. Carbon dioxide production (VCO2) was determined from
measurements of expired ventilation and mixed expired carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Systemic
arterial CO2 tension (PaCO2) was derived from the end-tidal CO2 tension (PETCO2). Mixed venous CO2
tension (PVCO2) was determined with a CO2 rebreathing technique, as previously described by
Defares (10). The subjects were disconnected from the non-breathing value and connected to an
anaesthetic bag to rebreathe a 4% concentration of CO2. Each subject was instructed to breathe at a
rate of 40 breaths/min in time with one of the investigators (BH), completely emptying the bag on
inspiration and filling it on expiration. A Medical Graphics CardiO2 metabolic analyzer was used to
graphically examine the CO2 signal generated during the rebreathing to ensure that a satisfactory
CO2 partial pressure had been achieved.
52
Table 1. Subject characteristics (M ± SD).
N Gender Height (cm) Weight (kg) Age (yr)
6Male 181 ± 5 96 ± 18 23 ± 2
5Female 162 ± 8 65 ± 22 23 ± 1
11 Total 172 ± 12 82 ± 25 23 ± 1
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
Cardiac output was calculated from the measurements of VCO2 and the estimated PaCO2 and PVCO2
(i.e., Q = VCO2 ÷ PVCO2 – PaCO2). This method correlates well [r = 0.96, 95% confidence interval
(CI) of the different -0.37 to +0.47 L/min] with Q measurements made by thermodilution [11]. Cardiac
output was collected at minute 15, which was followed by the subject’s rating of the exercise intensity
using the Borg’s 6-20 scale of perceived exertion. Stroke volume was calculated by dividing Q by
HR. Arteriovenous oxygen difference (a-vO2 diff) was calculated by dividing VO2 by Q. Myocardial
oxygen consumption (MVO2) in mL/100 gm LV/min was calculated using the equation: MVO2 = 0.14
(DP) – 6.3, in which double product (DP) was calculated by multiplying the subjects’ exercise HR x
SBP x 0.01.
Statistical Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to determine if there were any
significant differences in the dependent variables (VO 2, Q, SV, HR, a-vO2 diff, SBP, DBP, MAP, SVR,
MVO2, VCO2, VE, Fb, Tv, RER, and RPE) across the three exercise conditions. A probability of p<0.05
was used to determine statistical significance. When statistical significance was found, a post hoc
Scheffe test was performed (p<0.05) to determine where the difference occurred.
RESULTS
Cardiovascular responses to the three exercise conditions (Fast Music, Slow Music, and No Music)
are presented in Table 3. The hemodynamic responses are given in Table 4, and respiratory
responses can be found in Table 5. Listening to fast music (Treatment 1) while jogging produced
greater VO2, Q, SV, VE, and Fb and a lower SVR compared to slow music (Treatment 2) and no music
(Control). Other cardiovascular, hemodynamic, and respiratory variables did not change. The results
indicate that listening to fast music while exercising produced significant central adjustments in the
cardiovascular response to steady-state treadmill exercise. Listening to fast music also increased the
work of the lungs. Interestingly, there was no difference in the BP to both treatments versus the
control.
DISCUSSION
Based on the Fick equation (VO2 = Q x a-vO2 diff), the subjects’ increase in VO2 while listing to the
fast music during exercise was due to the increase in Q, which resulted from the increase in steady-
stead SV (Q = SV x HR). The increase in SV indicates that listening to fast music during exercise
increases contractility of the heart. Increased ventricular contractility can be produced by activation of
53
Table 3. Cardiovascular responses to fast, slow, and no music during submaximal
treadmill exercise (M ± SD).
Cardiovascular
Variables
Treatment 1
Fast Music
(A)
Treatment 2
Slow Music
(B)
Control
No Music
(C)
F value Sig
VO2 (L/min) 2.52 ± 0.69
A-B^ A-C^
2.39 ± 0.71 2.34 ± 0.61 8.186 .003*
Q (L/min) 21.5 ± 5.6
A-B^ A-C^
18.0 ± 3.4 18.3 ± 3.6 7.934 .003*
HR (bpm) 167 ± 16 165 ± 16 163 ±19 2.089 .158
SV (mL/beat) 130 ± 36
A-B^ A-C^
111 ± 25 113 ± 25 5.936 .010*
a-vO2diff
(mL/100 mL)
11.9 ± 2.2 13.1 ± 2.4 12.7 ± 1.4 1.981 .173
SVR (mmHg/L/min) 4.8 ± 1.2
A-B^ A-C^
5.7 ± 0.9 5.4 ± 1.0 3.584 .047*
*ANOVA, (p<0.05); ^Scheffe test, (p<0.05)
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), increased catecholamine release from the adrenal medulla,
and/or greater venous return via the Frank Starling mechanism (12). Since HR did not increase, it is
reasonable to assume that the increased SV may also be associated with an increase in venous
return (i.e., preload). This assumption is likely to be the case, given that greater skeletal muscle
activity is linked to an increase in VO2. In fact, the subjects’ VO2 was significantly increased while
listing to fast music (as was caloric expenditure) versus slow music or no music during exercise.
While the difference is not that large (189 kcal, Fast Music vs. 179 kcal, Slow Music), burning more
calories during exercising at the same HR intensity should be of considerable interest to people
concerned with weight management. To do so without an increase in HR is also an important finding
for people with cardiovascular disease.
It might be argued that since a-vO2 diff did not change across the three experimental conditions, the
skeletal muscles could not have extracted more oxygen when the subjects were listening to fast
music. Recall that a-vO2 diff is the amount of O2 in milliliters (mL) removed from a standard volume of
arterial blood (100 mL or 1 L). Consequently, even though the muscle fibers did not extract more O2
per 100 mL of blood, more blood was delivered to the muscles per unit time (increased Q), thus
increasing VO2.
The unchanged HR found in this study is in agreement with Brownley et al. (4). However, this finding
is in contrast to the report by Edworthy and Waring (6) and Thornby, Haas, and Axen (13). They
observed a significant increase in HR when their subjects listened to fast music while exercising.
Their studies used different exercise protocols and different music selection processes, which may
account for the contradictory findings. The lower SVR in the fast music group was caused by the
higher Q since MAP did not change. The lower SVR allowed for a greater Q response without a
significant increase in SBP (Table 4). Since neither HR nor SBP increased with fast music, the heart
54
Table 4. Hemodynamic responses to fast, slow, and no music during submaximal treadmill
exercise (M ± SD).
Hemodynamic
Variables
Treatment 1
Fast Music
Treatment 2
Slow Music
Control
No Music
F value Sig
SBP (mmHg) 151 ± 26 145 ± 19 143 ± 16 1.772 .196
DBP (mmHg) 73 ± 5 76 ± 5 74 ± 6 1.668 .220
MAP (mmHg) 97 ± 12 98 ± 9 96 ± 7 .537 .592
MVO2
(mL/100 g LV/min)
29.1 ±7.4 27.1 ±4.8 26.8 ± 5.8 2.307 .125
Table 5. Respiratory responses to fast, slow, and no music during submaximal treadmill
exercise (M ± SD).
Respiratory
Variables
Treatment 1
Fast Music
(A)
Treatment 1
Slow Music
(B)
Control
No Music
(C)
F value Sig
VCO2 (L/min) 2.43 ± 0.68 2.33 ± 0.69 2.36 ± 0.68 3.601 .057
VE (L/breath) 66 ± 18
A-B^ A-C^
63 ± 16 63 ± 16 5.187 .015*
Tv (mL/breath) 1608 ± 426 1590 ± 461 1616 ± 454 .471 .631
Fb (breaths/min) 42 ± 8
A-B^ A-C^
40 ± 8 40 ± 7 4.380 .026*
RER 0.96 ± .06 0.98 ± .07 1.00 ± .05 2.907 .078
RPE 13 ± 1 13 ± 1 13 ± 2 1.207 .302
* ANOVA, p<0.05; ^Scheffe p<0.05
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
did not work harder (i.e., as reflected in the unchanged MVO2) to increase the exercise VO2. Also, it
is likely that the increased Q with the unchanged MVO2 reflects a favorable physiological result.
The respiratory responses suggest that some of the increase in VO2 was likely due to increased work
of the respiratory system. The lungs worked harder while the subjects listened to fast tempo music.
The increase in VE was caused by an increase in Fb, not TV. Since it requires more energy to
increase respiratory rate than TV (14), some degree of pulmonary efficiency was lost when the
subjects listened to fast tempo music. However, the increase was only 2 breaths per minute, which is
not likely a concern to persons with healthy respiratory system.
Listening to fast or slow music did not change substrate utilization (RER, see Table 5). Apparently,
people will not burn proportionately more fat while listening to music during exercise. However,
according to the results of this study, they will burn more total calories by listening to fast tempo
music. Since the RER did not change significantly, more total calories burned should mean more
total fat calories burned as well.
Surprisingly, listening to music did not make the submaximal exercise seem any easier. The RPE
was the same with and without music. This is a surprising finding because of the common notion that
music serves as a distraction from the exercise itself, and other investigators have reported a
decrease in RPE when listening to music while exercising (15-17). All three of these studies
employed a cycle ergometer rather than a treadmill. Still, other studies that used a cycle ergometer
did not find any significant differences in RPE when their subjects listened to music (7,18-20).
Brownley et al. (4) used a treadmill and did not observe any differences in RPE. These divergent
findings may be at least partly attributed to differences in exercise intensity, duration, trained and
untrained states of the subjects, and the music selection process. Given that similarities in exercise
intensity and duration occurred across these studies, it seems that the music itself could be the key
factor in determining physiological and psychological responses. That is, the subjects’ individual
tastes in music may be critically important to how they respond to music during exercise.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study convey a mixed message. This study showed that listening to fast music
during steady-state treadmill exercise resulted in a significant increase in SV and Q, which then
resulted in a small increase in VO2. Neither fast nor slow music influenced HR or BP and, therefore,
MVO2 was not increased. Hence, on one hand, listening to fast music decreased the subjects’
cardiovascular efficiency since they were able to perform the same steady-state exercise with either
slow music or no music with a lower SV, Q, and VO2. On the other hand, it may allow individuals to
burn slightly more calories during steady-state exercise when they listen to fast tempo music while
still avoiding an increase in the work of the heart (MVO2). By acting as a positive influence on caloric
expenditure, fast music may motivate the individual to increase adherence to exercise, allowing a
greater caloric expenditure over time.
Address for correspondence: Larry Birnbaum, The College of St. Scholastica, 1200 Kenwood Ave.,
Duluth, MN 55811.
55
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
REFERENCES
1. Lee MHM. Rehabilitation, Music and Human Well-Being. St. Louis, MI: MMB Music, Inc.,
1989.
2. Michel DE. Music Therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1985.
3. Simpson SD and Karageorghis CI. The effects of synchronous music on 400-m sprint
performance. J Sports Sci 2006;24(10):1095-1103.
4. Brownley KA, McMurray RG, and Hackney AC. Effects of music on physiological and affective
responses to graded treadmill exercise in trained and untrained runners. Int J Psychophysiol
1995;19:193-201.
5. Iwanaga M, Ikeda M, and Iwaki T. The effects of repetitive exposure to music on subjective
physiological responses. J Music Ther 1996;33(3):219-230.
6. Edworthy J and Waring H. The effects of music tempo and loudness level on treadmill exercise.
Ergonomics 2006;49(15):1597-1610.
7. Schwartz SE, Fernhall B, and Plowman SA. Effects of music on exercise performance. J
Cardiopulm Rehabil 1990;10:312-316.
8. Yamamoto T, Ohkuwa T, Itoh H, Kitoh M, Terasawa J, Tsuda T, Kitagawa S, and Sato Y. (2003).
Effects of pre-exercise listening to slow and fast rhythm music on supramaximal cycle
performance and selected metabolic variables. Arch Physiol Biochem 2003;111(3):211-214.
9. Szabo A, Small A, and Leigh M. The effects of slow and fast-rhythm classical music on
progressive cycling to voluntary exhaustion. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1999;39:220-225.
10.Defares, J.G. (1958). Determination of PvCO2 from the exponential CO2 rise during rebreathing. J
Appl Physiol, 13, 159-164.
11.Cowley, AJ, Murphy DT, Stainer K, Murphy J, and Hampton JR. A non-invasive method for
measuring cardiac output: the effect of Christmas lunch. Lancet 1986;ii;1422-1423.
12.Brooks GA, Fahey TD, White TP, and Baldwin KM. Exercise Physiology: Human
Bioenergetics And Its Applications. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000.
13.Thornby MA, Haas F, and Axen K. Effect of distractive auditory-stimuli on exercise tolerance in
patients with COPD. Chest, 1995;197:1213-1217.
14.McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, & Human
Performance. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
15.Yamashita S, Iwai K, Akimoto T, Sugawara J, and Kono I. Effects of music during exercise on
RPE, heart rate and the autonomic nervous system. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2006;46(3):425-430.
56
Cardiovascular Responses to Music Tempo
16.Nethery VM. Competition between internal and external sources of information during exercise:
influence on RPE and the impact of the exercise load. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2002;42(2):172-178.
17.Nethery VM, Harmer PA, and Taaffe DR. Sensory mediation of perveived exertion during
submaximal exercise. J Hum Mov Stud 1991;20:201-211.
18.Caria MA, Tangianu F, Concu A, Crisafulli A, and Mameli O. Quantification of Spinning® bike
performance during a standard 50-minute class. J Sports Sci 2006;25(4):421-429.
19.Anshel MH. and Marisi DQ. Effect of music and rhythm on physical performance. Res Q
1979;49(2):109-113.
20.Coutts CA. Effects of music on pulse rates and work output of short duration. Res Q 1965;36:17-
57
