Conditioning significantly increased power output at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds, but heart rate at these thresholds remained stable (e.g., HR at AerT 130 vs 129 bpm; P>0.05).
Observational (n=13)
Does conditioning change the heart rate and RPE associated with aerobic and anaerobic thresholds in competitive speed skaters?
Heart rate and RPE at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds remain stable despite changes in fitness, suggesting a single evaluation can establish longitudinally stable training markers.
Absolute Event Rate: 130% vs 129%
p-value: p=>0.05
INTRODUCTION: The identification of the HR (or RPE) associated with blood lactate concentrations of 2.5 mmol x L(-1)(aerobic threshold) (AerT) and 4.0 mmol x L(-1)(anaerobic threshold) (AnT) is a common method for defining training intensities. It is often assumed that the HR at AerT and AnT changes with changes in fitness, much as the power output (Watts: W) associated with AerT and AnT is known to change. METHODS: We studied speed skaters (N = 13, 7 male, 6 female) during spring (deconditioned) and fall (conditioned) evaluations, using cycle ergometry (stage duration = 5 min) to determine W, HR, and RPE at AerT, AnT, and at maximal exercise (3000 (female) and 5000 (male) m cycle time trials). RESULTS: In the spring vs. fall evaluations, the power output at AerT was 127+/-12 vs 162+/-9 W (P0.05), at AnT was 162+/-7 vs. 164+/-7 bpm (P>0.05), and at maximal exercise was 196+/-6 vs. 198+/-5 bpm (P>0.05); RPE at AerT was 2.7+/-0.9 vs. 2.6+/-0.8 (P>0.05), at AnT was 5.3+/-1.0 vs. 5.3+/-0.9 (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that although power output at AerT, AnT, and maximal exercise changes significantly with conditioning, there is no systematic change in the associated values for HR and/or RPE used as practical markers of training intensity. Accordingly, a single well-conducted evaluation may allow evaluation of appropriate training markers that may be longitudinally stable.
Foster et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Competitive athletes (speed skaters) (n=13). Conditioning (fall evaluation) vs. Deconditioning (spring evaluation) was evaluated on Heart rate at aerobic threshold (AerT) (p=>0.05). Conditioning significantly increased power output at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds, but heart rate at these thresholds remained stable (e.g., HR at AerT 130 vs 129 bpm; P>0.05).