These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Heart Rate Variability Thresholds: Agreement with Established Approaches and Reproducibility in Trained Females and Males.
    Author: Fleitas-Paniagua PR, Marinari G, Rasica L, Rogers B, Murias JM.
    Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2024 Jul 01; 56(7):1317-1327. PubMed ID: 38376998.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To determine in trained females and males i) the agreement between the gas exchange threshold (GET), lactate threshold 1 (LT1), and heart rate variability threshold 1 (HRVT1), as well as between the respiratory compensation point (RCP), lactate threshold 2 (LT2), and heart rate variability threshold 2 (HRVT2), and ii) the reproducibility of HRVT1 and HRVT2 during 2-min incremental step protocols. METHODS: Fifty-seven trained participants (24 females) completed a 2-min step incremental test to task failure. Nineteen participants (eight females) completed a second test to evaluate reproducibility. Gas exchange and ventilatory responses, blood lactate concentration, and RR time series were recorded to assess the oxygen consumption (V̇O 2 ) and heart rate (HR) associated with the GET, RCP, LT1, LT2, HRVT1, and HRVT2. RESULTS: V̇O 2 -GET versus V̇O 2 -HRVT1 and HR-GET versus HR-HRVT1 were statistically different for females (29.5 ± 4.0 vs 34.6 ± 6.1 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 154 ± 11 vs 166 ± 12 bpm) and for males (33.9 ± 4.2 vs 42.7 ± 4.6 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 145 ± 11 vs 165 ± 9 bpm; P < 0.001). V̇O 2 and HR at HRVT1 were greater than at LT1 ( P < 0.05). V̇O 2 -RCP versus V̇O 2 -HRVT2 and HR-RCP versus HR-HRVT2 were not statistically different for females (40.1 ± 4.7 vs 39.5 ± 6.7 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 177 ± 9 vs 176 ± 9 bpm) and males (48.4 ± 5.4 vs 47.8 ± 4.8 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 176 ± 8 vs 175 ± 9 bpm; P > 0.05). V̇O 2 and HR responses at LT2 were similar to HRVT2 ( P > 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficient for V̇O 2 -HRVT1, HR-HRVT1, V̇O 2 -HRVT2, and HR-HRVT2 indicated good reproducibility when comparing the two different time points to standard methods. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas HRVT2 is a valid and reproducible estimate of the RCP/LT2, current approaches for HRVT1 estimation did not show good agreement with outcomes at GET and LT1.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]