Key result
Maximal heart rate prediction models differed from CPET-measured HRmax in 9 of 13 evaluated models, indicating they do not allow for accurate estimation in endurance athletes.
Why the study?
Prediction of HRmax is an alternative to CPET, but its accuracy among endurance athletes required evaluation independently for running and cycling.
Do HRmax prediction models accurately estimate maximal heart rate compared to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in endurance athletes?
Cross-Sectional (n=5,069)
Do HRmax prediction models accurately estimate maximal heart rate compared to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in endurance athletes?
Prediction models do not accurately estimate maximal heart rate in endurance athletes, suggesting that cardiopulmonary exercise testing remains the preferred approach.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Most HRmax models inaccurately estimate values versus CPET in endurance athletes; hypothesis-generating and leaves open athlete-specific validation.
Maximal heart rate (HRmax) is a widely used measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. Prediction of HRmax is an alternative to cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), but its accuracy among endurance athletes (EA) requires evaluation. This study aimed to externally validate HRmax prediction models in the EA independently for running and cycling CPET. 4043 runners (age=33.58 (8.12) years; 83.53% males; BMI=23.66 (2.54) kg·m−2) and 1026 cyclists (age=36.88 (9.03) years; 89.67% males; BMI=24.04 (2.65) kg·m−2) underwent maximum CPET. Student t-test, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error (RMSE) were applied to externally validate 8 running and 5 cycling HRmax equations. HRmax was 184.60 (9.79) beats·min−1 and 182.66 (10.28) beats·min−1 respectively for running and cycling, p=0.001. Measured and predicted HRmax differed significantly (p=0.001) for 9 of 13 (69.23%) models. HRmax was overestimated by 8 (61.54%) and underestimated by 5 (38.46%) formulae. Overestimated HRmax ranged 0.08-4.94 beats·min−1 and underestimated HRmax ranged 0.03-4.90 beats·min−1. MAE and RMSE were 0.18-4.94 beats·min−1 and 9.13-10.47, respectively. MAPE ranged 3.95-4.69%. Prediction models do not allow for accurate estimation of HRmax. HRmax was more often underestimated than overestimated. Predicted HRmax can be implemented for EA as a supplemental method but CPET is the preferable approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasiak et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Endurance athletes (runners and cyclists) (n=5,069). HRmax prediction models vs. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was evaluated on Difference between measured and predicted HRmax (p=0.001). Maximal heart rate prediction models differed from CPET-measured HRmax in 9 of 13 evaluated models, indicating they do not allow for accurate estimation in endurance athletes.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: