Examining weekly heart rate variability changes: a comparison between wearable devices running head: weekly heart rate variability changes
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
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 wearable devices running head: weekly heart rate variability changes. Sports Eng 25, 7 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-022-00371-8]
Patrocinador
Spanish Government PID2020-115600RB-C21 MCIN/AEI/1.0.13039/501100011033 FPU19/00542Résumé
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.