Key result
The heart rate deflection point method showed acceptable agreement with the ventilatory threshold method for determining heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (147 vs 147 bpm) during water-based exercise in trained older women.
Why the study?
Anaerobic threshold determination is important for individualizing aerobic training, prompting comparison and agreement testing between the ventilatory threshold and heart rate deflection point methods during aquatic incremental testing in trained older women.
Does the heart rate deflection point (HRDP) method agree with the ventilatory threshold (VT) method for determining the anaerobic threshold in trained older women during water-based exercises?
Cross-Sectional (n=9)
Single-blind
No
Does the heart rate deflection point (HRDP) method agree with the ventilatory threshold (VT) method for determining the anaerobic threshold in trained older women during water-based exercises?
Absolute Event Rate: 147% vs 147%
p-value: p=>0.05
The heart rate deflection point is a valid, non-invasive, and practical method for determining the anaerobic threshold and prescribing exercise intensity during water-based exercises in trained older women.
HRDP may offer a practical non-invasive option for threshold assessment during water-based exercise in trained older women; leaves open broader validation in prospective trials.
Introduction: The anaerobic threshold (AT) determination is important for individualizing the aerobic training prescription. Objective: To compare and verify the agreement between oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) at the AT determined by the ventilatory threshold (VT) and heart rate deflection point (HRDP) methods during an aquatic incremental test in trained older women. Methods: Nine elderly women (64.3 ± 4.4 years) engaged in a water-based training program in the last three months performed a maximum incremental test using the water-based stationary running exercise. The test started at a 70 b.min-1 cadence for 2 min, followed by 15 b.min-1 increments every 2 min until exhaustion. VO2, HR and RPE were measured throughout the test and the AT was identified for each method (i.e., VT and HRDP) by three experienced physiologists. Paired t-test and Bland-Altman analysis were used for data analysis (α=0.05). Results: There was no difference between the VT and HRDP methods (p>0.05) and the Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable agreement between them for all investigated outcomes (VO2: 22.9 ± 5.1 vs. 23.5 ± 4.7 ml.kg-1.min-1, IC95%: -3-+4 ml.kg-1.min-1; HR: 147 ± 11 vs. 147 ± 11 bpm, IC95%: -9-+8 b.min-1; RPE: 16 ± 1 vs. 16 ± 1, IC95%: -2-+3). Conclusion: Based on these findings, both HR and RPE determined by the HRDP can be used as valid parameters and practical tools for field prescription of intensity during water-based exercises in elderly trained women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrade et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy trained older women (n=9). Heart rate deflection point (HRDP) method vs. Ventilatory threshold (VT) method was evaluated on Heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (95% CI -9 to 8, p=>0.05). The heart rate deflection point method showed acceptable agreement with the ventilatory threshold method for determining heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (147 vs 147 bpm) during water-based exercise in trained older women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: