Key result
The Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software estimated VO2 accounting for 87% of variability in actual VO2, with a mean difference of -1.5 ml min(-1) kg(-1) compared to measured VO2.
Why the study?
Does the Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software accurately estimate VO2 from heart rate and heart rate variability without individual calibration in individuals performing daily activities?
Observational (n=19)
Does the Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software accurately estimate VO2 from heart rate and heart rate variability without individual calibration in individuals performing daily activities?
Mean Difference: -1.5
The HR and HRV-based prediction method is sufficiently accurate to determine average VO2 in field use, but it does not allow precise individual estimation.
Supports average VO2 estimation in daily activities without calibration; leaves open precise individual use pending prospective validation.
Heart rate (HR) as an estimator of oxygen consumption (VO(2) ) usually requires HR to be individually calibrated in a separate test. This study examined the validity of a new HR - and HR variability-based method (Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software) in the estimation of VO(2) in real-life tasks. The method takes into account the respiration rate determined from HR variability and the differences in the on/off dynamics of HR and VO(2) , and no calibration tests are needed. Ten men and nine women performed 25 tasks representing different types of daily activities. Portable devices were used to measure R-to-R intervals (ECG), VO(2) and respiration rate. In pooled regression analysis, the estimated VO(2) accounted for 87% of the variability in the actual VO(2) , SEE 3·5 ml min(-1) kg(-1) (1 MET). At group level, the method underestimated slightly the measured VO(2) (mean difference - 1·5 ml min(-1) kg(-1) or - 0·4 METs). Some of the values at low exercise intensities were markedly underestimated, but the agreement was better during light and heavy activities. The limits of agreement for the data were from -8·4 to 5·4 ml min(-1) kg(-1) or from -2·4 to 1·5 METs. At individual level, the average deviations of the predicted VO(2) ranged from -1·0 to 0·6 METs and R(2) from 0·77 to 0·94, respectively. The present data indicate that the prediction method may be considered sufficiently accurate to determine the average VO(2) in field use, but it does not allow precise estimation of VO(2) .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smolander et al. (2011) reported an observational. Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software vs. Measured VO(2) was evaluated on VO(2) estimation accuracy (Mean difference -1.5 ml min(-1) kg(-1)). The Firstbeat PRO heartbeat analysis software estimated VO2 accounting for 87% of variability in actual VO2, with a mean difference of -1.5 ml min(-1) kg(-1) compared to measured VO2.