Reliability and validity of a non-linear index of heart rate variability to determine intensity thresholds

Exercise intensity distribution is crucial for exercise individualization, prescription, and monitoring. As traditional methods to determine intensity thresholds present limitations, heart rate variability (HRV) using DFA a1 has been proposed as a biomarker for exercise intensity distribution. This...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in physiology 2024-02, Vol.15, p.1329360-1329360
Hauptverfasser: Sempere-Ruiz, Noemí, Sarabia, José Manuel, Baladzhaeva, Sabina, Moya-Ramón, Manuel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Exercise intensity distribution is crucial for exercise individualization, prescription, and monitoring. As traditional methods to determine intensity thresholds present limitations, heart rate variability (HRV) using DFA a1 has been proposed as a biomarker for exercise intensity distribution. This index has been associated with ventilatory and lactate thresholds in previous literature. This study aims to assess DFA a1's reliability and validity in determining intensity thresholds during an incremental cycling test in untrained healthy adults. Sixteen volunteers (13 males and 3 females) performed two identical incremental cycling stage tests at least 1 week apart. First and second ventilatory thresholds, lactate thresholds, and HRV thresholds (DFA a1 values of 0.75 and 0.5 for HRVT1 and HRVT2, respectively) were determined in heart rate (HR), relative oxygen uptake (VO rel), and power output (PO) values for both tests. We used intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), change in mean, and typical error for the reliability analysis, and paired t-tests, correlation coefficients, ICC, and Bland-Altman analysis to assess the agreement between methods. Regarding reliability, HRV thresholds showed the best ICCs when measured in PO (HRVT1: ICC = .87; HRVT2: ICC = .97), comparable to ventilatory and lactate methods. HRVT1 showed the strongest agreement with LA 2.5 in PO ( = 0.09, = .93, ICC = .93, bias = 9.9 ± 21.1), while HRVT2 reported it with VT2 in PO ( = 0.367, = .92, ICC = .92, bias = 5.3 ± 21.9). DFA a1 method using 0.75 and 0.5 values is reliable and valid to determine HRV thresholds in this population, especially in PO values.
ISSN:1664-042X
1664-042X
DOI:10.3389/fphys.2024.1329360