Key result
HRV-guided endurance training improves submaximal physiological parameters vs predefined training but not performance or VO2peak.
Why the study?
It was unclear whether endurance training outcomes based on heart rate variability are more favorable than those of predefined training.
Does HRV-guided endurance training improve physiological parameters and performance compared to predefined training in exercising individuals?
Meta-Analysis (n=198)
Does HRV-guided endurance training improve physiological parameters and performance compared to predefined training in exercising individuals?
HRV-guided endurance training yields better improvements in submaximal physiological parameters and fewer non-responders than predefined training, despite similar overall performance gains.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports HRV-guided training for submaximal gains in endurance athletes; extends meta-analytic evidence on training individualization.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically perform a meta-analysis of the scientific literature to determine whether the outcomes of endurance training based on heart rate variability (HRV) are more favorable than those of predefined training. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science were searched systematically in March of 2020 using keywords related to endurance, the ANS, and training. To compare the outcomes of HRV-guided and predefined training, Hedges' g effect size and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies (198 participants) were identified comprising 9 interventions involving a variety of approaches. Compared to predefined training, most HRV-guided interventions included fewer moderate- and/or high-intensity training sessions. Fixed effects meta-analysis revealed a significant medium-sized positive effect of HRV-guided training on submaximal physiological parameters (g = 0.296, 95% CI 0.031 to 0.562, p = 0.028), but its effects on performance (g = 0.079, 95% CI -0.050 to 0.393, p = 0.597) and V̇O2peak (g = 0.171, 95% CI -0.213 to 0.371, p = 0.130) were small and not statistically significant. Moreover, with regards to performance, HRV-guided training was associated with fewer non-responders and more positive responders. CONCLUSIONS: . There were fewer non-responders regarding performance with HRV-based training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Düking et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Endurance training (n=198). HRV-guided endurance training vs. Predefined training was evaluated on Submaximal physiological parameters (Hedges' g 0.296, 95% CI 0.031 to 0.562, p=0.028). HRV-guided endurance training significantly improved submaximal physiological parameters compared to predefined training (g = 0.296; 95% CI 0.031-0.562; p=0.028), but not performance or V̇O2peak.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: