Santos, TM, Gomes, PSC, Oliveira, BRR, Ribeiro, LG, and Thompson, WR. A new strategy for the implementation of an aerobic training session. J Strength Cond Res 26(1): 87–93, 2012—The objectives were to propose a new strategy for adjusting aerobic training variables based on the eighth American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines and maximal aerobic power (V̇O2max) and to establish energy expenditure (EE) recommendations for training, which depend on a subject's body mass (BM). Exclusively based on aerobic training recommendations that are available in the ACSM guidelines, 16 equally partitioned subcategories were created from the slope of a linear regression between the lower (16.4 ml·kg−1·min−1) and upper (61.2 ml·kg−1·min−1) limits of V̇O2max percentile tables and all aerobic variables (intensity: 30–85%Reserve, duration: 60–300 min·wk−1, frequency: 3–5 d·wk−1, and EE: 1,000–4,000 kcal·wk−1). ACSM's EE (EEACSM) recommendation was compared to EE based on V̇O2max (EEActual), BM, exercise intensity and duration combined, for five BM categories (60 to 100 kg). The following equations were generated to adjust aerobic training: Intensity (%Reserve) = V̇O2max (ml·kg−1·min−1) × 1.23 + 9.85, Duration (min·wk−1) = V̇O2max × 5.36–27.91, Frequency (d·wk−1) = V̇O2max × 0.044 + 2.27, EEACSM (kcal·wk−1) = V̇O2max × 82.61–1,055.29, and EEActual (kcal·wk−1) = ([V̇O2max − 3.5] × Intensity + 3.5) × BM (kg)/200 × Frequency. A comparison of EEACSM and EEActual for 5 BM and 3 aerobic fitness categories demonstrated an effect size classification that is equal or superior to “large” in 9 of 15 comparisons, suggesting that EEACSM adjustment is inadequate at least 60% of the time. Despite the need to verify the adequacy of the linear model and perform future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, the present proposal first provides criteria to adjust aerobic training variables consistent with subject capacity, thus diminishing the risk of the imprecise aerobic prescription.