Key result
Moderate differences (d = 0.60-0.79) were found between age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based methods for determining maximum heart rate when calculating summated-heart-rate-zones.
Why the study?
Do different methods of determining maximum heart rate (age-predicted, test-derived, session-based) affect summated-heart-rate-zones training load calculations in basketball players?
Cross-Sectional (n=6)
Do different methods of determining maximum heart rate (age-predicted, test-derived, session-based) affect summated-heart-rate-zones training load calculations in basketball players?
Age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based methods to determine HRmax are not interchangeable when calculating summated-heart-rate-zones training load, suggesting individualized direct measurement is preferable.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Different HRmax methods may not be interchangeable for load monitoring; leaves open optimal approach in basketball athletes.
Berkelmans, DM, Dalbo, VJ, Fox, JL, Stanton, R, Kean, CO, Giamarelos, KE, Teramoto, M, and Scanlan, AT. Influence of different methods to determine maximum heart rate on training load outcomes in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3177-3185, 2018-The summated-heart-rate-zones (SHRZ) approach uses heart rate (HR) responses relative to maximum HR (HRmax) to calculate the internal training load (TL). Age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based approaches have all been used to determine HRmax in team sports. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of using age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based HRmax responses on SHRZ TL in basketball players. Semiprofessional, male basketball players (N = 6) were analyzed during the preparatory training phase. Six age-based approaches were used to predict HRmax including Fox (220 - age); Hossack (206 - [0.567 × age]); Tanaka (208 - [0.7 × age]); Nikolaidis (223 - [1.44 × age]); Nes (211 - [0.64 × age]); and Faff (209.9 - [0.73 × age]). Test-derived HRmax was taken as the highest HR during the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test (Yo-Yo IRT), whereas session-based HRmax was taken as the higher HR seen during the Yo-Yo IRT or training sessions. Comparisons in SHRZ TL were made at group and individual levels. No significant group differences were evident between SHRZ approaches. Effect size analyses revealed moderate (d = 0.60-0.79) differences between age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based methods across the group and individually in 2 players. The moderate differences between approaches suggest age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based methods to determine HRmax are not interchangeable when calculating SHRZ. Basketball practitioners are encouraged to use individualized HRmax directly measured during field-based tests supplemented with higher HR responses evident during training sessions and games when calculating the SHRZ TL to ensure greatest accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berkelmans et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (Basketball players) (n=6). Different methods to determine maximum heart rate (age-predicted, test-derived, session-based) vs. Each other was evaluated on Summated-heart-rate-zones (SHRZ) training load (d = 0.60-0.79). Moderate differences (d = 0.60-0.79) were found between age-predicted, test-derived, and session-based methods for determining maximum heart rate when calculating summated-heart-rate-zones.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: