Examining weekly heart rate variability changes: a comparison between monitoring methods
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Ruiz Alías, Santiago Alejo; Marcos Blanco, Aitor; Clavero Jimeno, Antonio; García Pinillos, FelipeEditorial
Springer
Materia
Monitoring Heart rate variability Internal load Wearable Sport watch Photoplethysmography
Date
2022-04-29Referencia bibliográfica
Ruiz-Alias, S.A... [et al.]. Examining weekly heart rate variability changes: a comparison between monitoring methods. Sports Eng 25, 7 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-022-00371-8]
Sponsorship
Departamento de Educación Física y Deportiva; EDUSport Research Project (ref. PID2020-115600RB-C21) MCIN/ AEI/1.0.13039/501100011033; Spanish Ministry of Education under grant [FPU19/00542]Abstract
Monitoring heart rate variability has been commonly performed by different devices which differ in their methods (i.e., night recording vs. upon awakening measure, pulse vs. R waves, and software signal processing), Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between different methods of heart rate variability monitoring, represented in two different systems (i.e., the Polar Nightly Recharge™ function present in Polar sport watches and the Polar H10 chest strap synchronized with the Kubios app). A group of 11 recreational athletes performed a concurrent training program for eight weeks and heart rate variability was daily monitored through both devices. Very large correlation (r = 0.714) and good reliability (ICC = 0.817) were obtained between devices through the entire training program. The magnitude-based inference method was also applied to determine the likelihood of the change concerning the smallest worthwhile change. From a baseline corresponding to the first two weeks of the training program, the weekly heart rate variability changes of the following six weeks were determined for each participant with each device. Despite the large correlation and good reliability between devices, there was a 60.6% of discordance in the likelihood interpretation of the change for the 66 weeks evaluated, explained by the random errors found. Thus, practitioners should be aware of these differences if their training groups use different devices or if an athlete interchanges them. The different nuances of each device can condition the heart rate variability data variation which could compromise the interpretation of the autonomic nervous system modulation.