Monitoring training status with HR measures: do all roads lead to Rome?
By M. Buchheit. Frontiers in Physiology, 2014
815 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Measures of resting, exercise, and recovery heart rate are receiving increasing interest for monitoring fatigue, fitness and endurance performance responses, which has direct implications for adjusting training load (1) daily during specific training blocks and (2) throughout the competitive season. However, these measures are still not widely implemented to monitor athletes' responses to training load, probably because of apparent contradictory findings in the literature. In this review I contend that most of the contradictory findings are related to methodological inconsistencies and/or misinterpretation of the data rather than to limitations of heart rate measures to accurately inform on training status. I also provide evidence that measures derived from 5-min (almost daily) recordings of resting (indices capturing beat-to-beat changes in heart rate, reflecting cardiac parasympathetic activity) and submaximal exercise (30- to 60-s average) heart rate are likely the most useful monitoring tools. For appropriate interpretation at the individual level, changes in a given measure should be interpreted by taking into account the error of measurement and the smallest important change of the measure, as well as the training context (training phase, load, and intensity distribution). The decision to use a given measure should be based upon the level of information that is required by the athlete, the marker's sensitivity to changes in training status and the practical constrains required for the measurements. However, measures of heart rate cannot inform on all aspects of wellness, fatigue, and performance, so their use in combination with daily training logs, psychometric questionnaires and non-invasive, cost-effective performance tests such as a countermovement jump may offer a complete solution to monitor training status in athletes participating in aerobic-oriented sports.
Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Complementary and alternative medicine, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d66666c31214e44d2e56fe42330a1cb39ec28bd
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Complementary and alternative medicine
In Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Recovery and Performance in Sport: Consensus Statement. (2018, background): “12 Alterations in blood-based variables also characterize a prevalent approach as, for example, blood lactate is often assessed to monitor recovery and fatigue, although its appropriateness is still debated.”