Frontiers in Physiology· 2014Q2· Review
Monitoring training status with HR measures: do all roads lead to Rome?
- 862citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2014year
Short summary
Resting and submaximal exercise heart rate measures, particularly those reflecting cardiac parasympathetic activity and 30-60s averages, are the most useful tools for monitoring athlete training status, provided interpretation accounts for measurement error, smallest important change, and training context.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Resting and submaximal exercise heart rate measures are valuable for monitoring athlete fatigue and fitness.
- Contradictory findings in the literature are attributed to methodological inconsistencies and data misinterpretation.
- 5-minute resting HR indices (reflecting parasympathetic activity) and 30-60s submaximal exercise HR averages are proposed as the most useful monitoring tools.
- Individual interpretation must account for measurement error, smallest important change, and training context.
- Heart rate measures should be combined with training logs and performance tests for a complete training status assessment.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Measures of resting, exercise, and recovery heart rate are receiving increasing interest for monitoring fatigue, fitness and endurance performance responses, which has direct implications for adjusting training load (1) daily during specific training blocks and (2) throughout the competitive season. However, these measures are still not widely implemented to monitor athletes' responses to training load, probably because of apparent contradictory findings in the literature. In this review I contend that most of the contradictory findings are related to methodological inconsistencies and/or misinterpretation of the data rather than to limitations of heart rate measures to accurately inform on training status. I also provide evidence that measures derived from 5-min (almost daily) recordings of resting (indices capturing beat-to-beat changes in heart rate, reflecting cardiac parasympathetic activity) and submaximal exercise (30- to 60-s average) heart rate are likely the most useful monitoring tools. For appropriate interpretation at the individual level, changes in a given measure should be interpreted by taking into account the error of measurement and the smallest important change of the measure, as well as the training context (training phase, load, and intensity distribution). The decision to use a given measure should be based upon the level of information that is required by the athlete, the marker's sensitivity to changes in training status and the practical constrains required for the measurements. However, measures of heart rate cannot inform on all aspects of wellness, fatigue, and performance, so their use in combination with daily training logs, psychometric questionnaires and non-invasive, cost-effective performance tests such as a countermovement jump may offer a complete solution to monitor training status in athletes participating in aerobic-oriented sports.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Frontiers in Physiology, 2014 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Orthopedics and Sports MedicineMedicine