Key result
Maximal heart rate from laboratory treadmill testing (190 bpm) was significantly lower than field testing (197.9 bpm, p<0.001), training (198.9 bpm), and competitive matches (196.8 bpm).
Why the study?
Does maximal heart rate vary between laboratory testing, field testing, training, competitive matches, and age-predicted equations in female collegiate soccer players?
Cross-Sectional (n=15)
Does maximal heart rate vary between laboratory testing, field testing, training, competitive matches, and age-predicted equations in female collegiate soccer players?
Absolute Event Rate: 190% vs 197.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
Maximal heart rate achieved during laboratory treadmill testing significantly underestimates the true maximal heart rate achieved during field testing, training, and competition in female collegiate soccer players.
Supports caution relying on laboratory treadmill maximal heart rate; leaves open optimal field-based assessment methods for female athletes.
The purpose of this study was to determine if maximal heart rate (MHR) varies between laboratory testing, field testing, training, competitive matches and an age predicted MHR equation among female collegiate soccer players. 21 female NCAA Division 1 soccer players had MHR determined during a maximal treadmill test (MHRGXT), a 20-meter shuttle run test (MHRFIELD), 4 weeks of early season training (MHRTRAIN), 5 competitive matches (MHRMATCH), and an age prediction equation (MHRPRED). Participants were excluded if they were injured during the data collection period or failed to obtain at least 2 out of 3 criteria during treadmill testing: 1) RER 1.1, 2) plateau in VO2, and 3) attainment of 90% of MHRPRED. MHR was compared across different methods by ANOVA and Spearman correlation coefficients were determined between the different methods. 15 athletes satisfied the inclusion criteria. MHRGXT (190 3.1 bpm) was significantly lower than MHRFIELD (197.9 7.0 bpm, p<0.001), MHRTRAIN (198.9 5.3bpm, p<0.001), and MHRMATCH (196.8 4.4bpm, p=0.004), but not MHRPRED (193.8 0.7bpm, p=0.12). Significant correlations were found between MHRGXT and MHRFIELD (r=0.89, p<0.001), MHRTRAIN (r=0.822, p<0.001), and MHRMATCH (r=0.584, p=0.02). No differences were identified between MHRFIELD, MHRTRAIN, or MHRMATCH, but all three measures were significantly correlated (r=0.63 to 0.81). MHRPRED was not significantly correlated with any of the other methods (r=-0.216 to 0.137). MHR from laboratory testing was significantly lower than field testing, training, and Powered by Editorial Manager and ProduXion Manager from Aries Systems Corporation competition, although all 4 methods were highly
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coutinho et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Female collegiate soccer players (n=15). Laboratory treadmill testing vs. Field testing, training, and competitive matches was evaluated on Maximal heart rate (MHR) (p=<0.001). Maximal heart rate from laboratory treadmill testing (190 bpm) was significantly lower than field testing (197.9 bpm, p<0.001), training (198.9 bpm), and competitive matches (196.8 bpm).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: