Key result
Heart rate-based high-intensity interval training produced a likely small greater improvement in HRV (Ln rMSSD) than speed-based training (standardized change +0.50; 90% CL -0.14 to 1.14).
Why the study?
Does heart rate-based HIT prescription improve heart rate variability more than speed-based HIT prescription in young female student athletes?
Does heart rate-based HIT prescription improve heart rate variability more than speed-based HIT prescription in young female student athletes?
Both heart rate-based and speed-based high-intensity interval training improve heart rate variability in young female athletes, with heart rate-based prescription potentially eliciting slightly higher parasympathetic dominance.
Should not change HIT prescription in athletes; hypothesis-generating for HR- vs speed-based effects on HRV.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIT) prescription by heart rate (HR-based) and running speed (speed-based) methods on natural logarithm of the square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent normal R-R intervals (Ln rMSSD) as a measure of heart rate variability (HRV) in young female student athletes. Methods: Seventeen female student athletes participated in this study and were divided into HR-based (n=9, age: 16.7 years) and speed-based (n=8, age: 16.9 years) HIT groups. 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test was used for the speed-based group to detect the reference maximum speed (VIFT) for prescribing the HIT intensity accordingly. Age predicted maximal HR was used for the HR-based group as the reference value. All subjects performed similar training protocol for 5 weeks, except the method of individualizing HIT sessions (2 weekly sessions of HIT=3 sets of 3 minutes work interspersed with 3 minutes passive recovery with the 15-15 seconds format during each working set); either according to 90%-95% of maximal HR or VIFT. Results: HR- and speed-based HIT groups showed the most likely large improvements in Ln rMSSD of +7.9%, 90% confidence limits [CL] (5.9; 10.0); standardized change: +1.75 (1.32; 2.19) and +5.5%, (2.8; 8.3); +1.41 (0.72; 2.09), respectively. In between group analyses, HR-based HIT produced likely a small greater improvement in Ln rMSSD than speed-based HIT (+1.9%, [-5.0; 4.4]; +0.50 [-0.14; 1.14], chances for greater/similar/lower values of 79/17/4). Conclusion: It is concluded that both HIT prescription strategies were effective in Ln rMSSD elevation, but using maximal HR as a reference may elicit higher parasympathetic dominance with small effect in young female student athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rabbani et al. (2017) studied Healthy (young female student athletes) (n=17). Heart rate-based high-intensity interval training vs. Speed-based high-intensity interval training was evaluated on Natural logarithm of the square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent normal R-R intervals (Ln rMSSD) (standardized change +0.50, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.14). Heart rate-based high-intensity interval training produced a likely small greater improvement in HRV (Ln rMSSD) than speed-based training (standardized change +0.50; 90% CL -0.14 to 1.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: