Key result
Heart rate variability threshold 2 (HRVT2) showed good agreement and precision (CV < 12%, TE < 10%) to estimate lactate and ventilatory thresholds, whereas HRVT1 had low precision.
Why the study?
The study was designed to analyze the agreement and precision between heart rate variability thresholds and ventilatory and lactate thresholds during treadmill exercise.
Does heart rate variability threshold determination agree with ventilatory and lactate thresholds during treadmill exercise in healthy adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=34)
Does heart rate variability threshold determination agree with ventilatory and lactate thresholds during treadmill exercise in healthy adults?
HRVT2 is a valid, noninvasive method to estimate the second ventilatory and lactate thresholds in healthy adults, but HRVT1 lacks the precision to estimate the first thresholds.
HRVT2 shows promise as noninvasive alternative to LT2/VT2; leaves open routine adoption pending larger validation studies.
This study aims to analyze the agreement and precision between heart rate variability thresholds (HRVT1/2) with ventilatory and lactate thresholds 1 and 2 (VT1/2 and LT1/2) on a treadmill. Thirty-four male students were recruited. Day 1 consisted of conducting a health survey, anthropometrics, and Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPx). On Day 2, after 48 h, a second incremental test was performed, the Cardiopulmonary Stepwise Exercise Test consisting of 3 min stages (CPxS), to determine VT1/2, LT1/2, and HRVT1/2. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA and effect size (ηp2) were used, followed by Sidak’s post hoc. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) and Typical Error (TE) were applied to verify the precision. Bland Altman and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were applied to confirm the agreement. HRVT1 showed different values compared to LT1 (lactate, RER, and R-R interval) and VT1 (V̇E, RER, V̇CO2, and HR). No differences were found in threshold 2 (T2) between LT2, VT2, and HRVT2. No difference was found in speed and V̇O2 for T1 and T2. The precision was low to T1 (CV > 12% and TE > 10%) and good to T2 (CV < 12% and TE < 10%). The agreement was good to fair in threshold 1 (VT1, LT1, HRVT1) and excellent to good in T2 (VT1, LT1, HRVT1). HRVT1 is not a valid method (low precision) when using this protocol to estimate LT1 and VT1. However, HRVT2 is a valid and noninvasive method that can estimate LT2 and VT2, showing good agreement and precision in healthy adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neves et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults (n=34). Heart rate variability thresholds (HRVT1/2) vs. Ventilatory and lactate thresholds (VT1/2 and LT1/2) was evaluated on Agreement and precision between HRVT1/2 and VT1/2, LT1/2. Heart rate variability threshold 2 (HRVT2) showed good agreement and precision (CV < 12%, TE < 10%) to estimate lactate and ventilatory thresholds, whereas HRVT1 had low precision.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: