Key result
Heart rate deflection methods show large errors compared to gas analysis for assessing anaerobic threshold.
Why the study?
Do heart rate deflection methods accurately predict the anaerobic threshold compared to gas analysis in endurance athletes?
Population
115 competitive cyclists and/or triathletes
Comparison
Three heart rate breakpoint methods during… vs Gas analysis assessment of the anaerobic threshold
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Clinicians should avoid heart rate deflection methods for anaerobic threshold; leaves open validation of accurate noninvasive alternatives in athletes.
Observational (n=115)
Do heart rate deflection methods accurately predict the anaerobic threshold compared to gas analysis in endurance athletes?
p-value: p=0.268 for HR breakpoint, 0.998 for log function, 0.026 for log-linear
Heart rate deflection methods have large total errors when predicting the anaerobic threshold, limiting their practical value for endurance athletes.
Carey et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Anaerobic threshold assessment (n=115). Heart rate deflection methods (heart rate breakpoint, log function, log-linear) vs. Gas analysis assessment was evaluated on Anaerobic threshold (p=0.268 for HR breakpoint, 0.998 for log function, 0.026 for log-linear). Heart rate deflection methods showed large total errors (12.5 to 14.3 beats/min) compared to gas analysis for assessing the anaerobic threshold, indicating little practical value.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: