Maximal heart rate differs between laboratory and field conditions among female athletes

Empreu sempre aquest identificador per citar o enllaçar aquest ítem http://hdl.handle.net/10045/67977
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Títol: Maximal heart rate differs between laboratory and field conditions among female athletes
Autors: Coutinho, Carol | Watson, Andrew | Brickson, Stacey | Sanfilippo, Jennifer
Paraules clau: VO2max | Maximal heart rate | Athletes | Soccer
Àrees de coneixement: Educación Física y Deportiva
Data de publicació: 2017
Editor: Universidad de Alicante. Área de Educación Física y Deporte
Citació bibliogràfica: Journal of Human Sport and Exercise. 2017, 12(2): 386-395. doi:10.14198/jhse.2017.122.15
Resum: The purpose of this study was to determine if maximal heart rate (MHR) varies between laboratory testing, field testing, training, competitive matches and an age predicted MHR equation among female collegiate soccer players. 21 female NCAA Division 1 soccer players had MHR determined during a maximal treadmill test (MHRGXT), a 20-meter shuttle run test (MHRFIELD), 4 weeks of early season training (MHRTRAIN), 5 competitive matches (MHRMATCH), and an age prediction equation (MHRPRED). Participants were excluded if they were injured during the data collection period or failed to obtain at least 2 out of 3 criteria during treadmill testing: 1) RER ≥ 1.1, 2) plateau in VO2, and 3) attainment of ≥90% of MHRPRED. MHR was compared across different methods by ANOVA and Spearman correlation coefficients were determined between the different methods. 15 athletes satisfied the inclusion criteria. MHRGXT (190 ± 3.1 bpm) was significantly lower than MHRFIELD (197.9 ± 7.0 bpm, p<0.001), MHRTRAIN (198.9 ± 5.3bpm, p<0.001), and MHRMATCH (196.8 ± 4.4bpm, p=0.004), but not MHRPRED (193.8 ± 0.7bpm, p=0.12). Significant correlations were found between MHRGXT and MHRFIELD (r=0.89, p<0.001), MHRTRAIN (r=0.822, p<0.001), and MHRMATCH (r=0.584, p=0.02). No differences were identified between MHRFIELD, MHRTRAIN, or MHRMATCH, but all three measures were significantly correlated (r=0.63 to 0.81). MHRPRED was not significantly correlated with any of the other methods (r=-0.216 to 0.137). MHR from laboratory testing was significantly lower than field testing, training, and Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation competition, although all 4 methods were highly correlated. The differences in these methods should be taken into account when using MHR to prescribe exercise intensity.
URI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2017.122.15 | http://hdl.handle.net/10045/67977
ISSN: 1988-5202
DOI: 10.14198/jhse.2017.122.15
Idioma: eng
Tipus: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Drets: Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0
Revisió científica: si
Versió de l'editor: http://www.jhse.ua.es/
Apareix a la col·lecció: Journal of Human Sport and Exercise - 2017, Vol. 12, No. 2

Arxius per aquest ítem:
Arxius per aquest ítem:
Arxiu Descripció Tamany Format  
Thumbnailjhse_Vol_12_N_2_386-395.pdf266,11 kBAdobe PDFObrir Vista prèvia


Aquest ítem està subjecte a una llicència de Creative Commons Llicència Creative Commons Creative Commons