Susana Póvoas1,2, Peter Krustrup3, Carlo Castagna4,5. 1. Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal. scpovoas@gmail.com. 2. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, SDU Sport and Health Sciences Cluster (SHSC), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. scpovoas@gmail.com. 3. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, SDU Sport and Health Sciences Cluster (SHSC), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 4. Fitness Training and Biomechanics Laboratory, Technical Department, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Coverciano (Florence), Italy. 5. University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the accuracy of practical indirect methods (i.e., recreational football match and estimation equations) in assessing individual maximal heart rate (HRmax) in recreational football players. Sixty-two untrained male participants engaged in a recreational football intervention (age 39.3 ± 5.8 years, VO2max 41.2 ± 6.2 ml·kg-1·min-1, body mass 81.9 ± 10.8 kg, height 173.2 ± 6.4 cm) were tested for HRmax using a multiple approach, at baseline and post-intervention (i.e., in the untrained and trained status, respectively). Observed HRmax was plotted against peak match HR (Match-HRpeak) and HRmax estimated from prediction equations (EstHRmax) at both time-points. RESULTS: In the untrained status, only the 211 - 0.64 × Age and 226 - Age equations showed non-significant (medium-to-small) differences with observed HRmax. The differences between observed HRmax and Match-HRpeak were large (P < 0.0001). At post-intervention, the observed HRmax (Post-HRmax) was significantly and largely lower than at baseline. The prediction equations under consideration provided EstHRmax values that were lower than Post-HRmax, with small-to-large differences (P > 0.05). The exception was for the 226 - Age and 211 - 0.64 × Age equations, with values largely higher than Post-HRmax. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests caution when considering EstHRmax and Match-HRpeak in recreational football interventions to track HRmax. The accuracy of EstHRmax may vary according to training status, suggesting the need for different approaches and equations across training interventions.
PURPOSE: To examine the accuracy of practical indirect methods (i.e., recreational football match and estimation equations) in assessing individual maximal heart rate (HRmax) in recreational football players. Sixty-two untrained male participants engaged in a recreational football intervention (age 39.3 ± 5.8 years, VO2max 41.2 ± 6.2 ml·kg-1·min-1, body mass 81.9 ± 10.8 kg, height 173.2 ± 6.4 cm) were tested for HRmax using a multiple approach, at baseline and post-intervention (i.e., in the untrained and trained status, respectively). Observed HRmax was plotted against peak match HR (Match-HRpeak) and HRmax estimated from prediction equations (EstHRmax) at both time-points. RESULTS: In the untrained status, only the 211 - 0.64 × Age and 226 - Age equations showed non-significant (medium-to-small) differences with observed HRmax. The differences between observed HRmax and Match-HRpeak were large (P < 0.0001). At post-intervention, the observed HRmax (Post-HRmax) was significantly and largely lower than at baseline. The prediction equations under consideration provided EstHRmax values that were lower than Post-HRmax, with small-to-large differences (P > 0.05). The exception was for the 226 - Age and 211 - 0.64 × Age equations, with values largely higher than Post-HRmax. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests caution when considering EstHRmax and Match-HRpeak in recreational football interventions to track HRmax. The accuracy of EstHRmax may vary according to training status, suggesting the need for different approaches and equations across training interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aerobic fitness; Association football; Field tests; Soccer; Team sports; Yo–Yo tests
Authors: P Krustrup; J J Nielsen; B R Krustrup; J F Christensen; H Pedersen; M B Randers; P Aagaard; A-M Petersen; L Nybo; J Bangsbo Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2008-12-19 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Ida J Berglund; Sara E Sørås; Bård E Relling; Kari M Lundgren; Ida A Kiel; Trine Moholdt Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 4.319