Rhenan Bartels1, Eliza Prodel2, Mateus C Laterza2, Jorge Roberto P de Lima2, Tiago Peçanha3. 1. Biomedical Engineering Program COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2. Cardiovascular Research Unit and Exercise Physiology, University Hospital and Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Postexercise heart rate (HR) recovery presents an exponential decay, with two distinct phases: a fast phase, characterized by abrupt decay of HR, and determined by parasympathetic reactivation; and a slow phase, characterized by gradual decay of HR, and predominantly determined by sympathetic withdrawal. Although several methods have been proposed to assess postexercise HR recovery, none of those methods selectively assesses the time of transition from the fast to the slow phase of the HR recovery curve (HRRPT ), and the magnitude of decay prior to (HRRFP ) and after this point (HRRSP ). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to propose a method to identify HRRPT , HRRFP , and HRRSP and to verify the effects of exercise intensity and physical fitness on such parameters. METHODS:Ten healthy young participants (24 ± 3 years; 23.6 ± 1.7 kg/m2 ) randomly underwenttwo exercise sessions (30 min of cycling), at moderate (MI) and high intensity (HI); followed by 5 min of inactive recovery. HR was continuously recorded during the sessions. The algorithm for HRRPT analysis was written in Python and is freely available online. RESULTS:HRRPT and HRRSP were increased in HI session compared with MI (81 ± 24vs. 60 ± 20 s; 8 ± 10 vs. 1 ± 5 bpm; p = .04), and there was no difference in HRRFP between sessions (49 ± 15 vs. 46 ± 10 bpm; p = .17). In addition, HRRPT for MI exercise session was significantly and negatively associated with VO2max (r = -0.85, p < .05). CONCLUSION: The method herein presented was sensitive to exercise intensity, and partially responsive to aerobic fitness. Next studies should perform the pharmacological and clinical validations of the method.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Postexercise heart rate (HR) recovery presents an exponential decay, with two distinct phases: a fast phase, characterized by abrupt decay of HR, and determined by parasympathetic reactivation; and a slow phase, characterized by gradual decay of HR, and predominantly determined by sympathetic withdrawal. Although several methods have been proposed to assess postexercise HR recovery, none of those methods selectively assesses the time of transition from the fast to the slow phase of the HR recovery curve (HRRPT ), and the magnitude of decay prior to (HRRFP ) and after this point (HRRSP ). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to propose a method to identify HRRPT , HRRFP , and HRRSP and to verify the effects of exercise intensity and physical fitness on such parameters. METHODS: Ten healthy young participants (24 ± 3 years; 23.6 ± 1.7 kg/m2 ) randomly underwent two exercise sessions (30 min of cycling), at moderate (MI) and high intensity (HI); followed by 5 min of inactive recovery. HR was continuously recorded during the sessions. The algorithm for HRRPT analysis was written in Python and is freely available online. RESULTS: HRRPT and HRRSP were increased in HI session compared with MI (81 ± 24 vs. 60 ± 20 s; 8 ± 10 vs. 1 ± 5 bpm; p = .04), and there was no difference in HRRFP between sessions (49 ± 15 vs. 46 ± 10 bpm; p = .17). In addition, HRRPT for MI exercise session was significantly and negatively associated with VO2max (r = -0.85, p < .05). CONCLUSION: The method herein presented was sensitive to exercise intensity, and partially responsive to aerobic fitness. Next studies should perform the pharmacological and clinical validations of the method.
Authors: T Peçanha; E Prodel; R Bartels; O Nasario-Junior; R B Paula; L P Silva; M C Laterza; J R P Lima Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Zaqueline F Guerra; Tiago Peçanha; Débora N Moreira; Lilian P Silva; Mateus C Laterza; Fábio Y Nakamura; Jorge R P Lima Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Samia Mora; Rita F Redberg; Yadong Cui; Maura K Whiteman; Jodi A Flaws; A Richey Sharrett; Roger S Blumenthal Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: K Imai; H Sato; M Hori; H Kusuoka; H Ozaki; H Yokoyama; H Takeda; M Inoue; T Kamada Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094