Purpose. to verify the validity of Instant Heart Rate ® application in smartphones for the measurement of exercise heart rate. Methods. the individuals were initially instructed about all the procedures to be performed and signed the consent form. Anthropometric measures and rest heart rate were evaluated before the experimental session of the study. the subjects partici pated in a selfselected exercise on a cycle ergometer for 10 minutes. Results. the results for validity demonstrated in an iPhone/iOs ® smartphone revealed the intraclass correlation coefficient of r = 0.87 with a tendency to overestimate the heart rate by 5 bpm. For the Lenovo/Android ® model, the intraclass correlation coefficient was r = 0.98, underestimating the values by-0.7 bpm. thus, both systems presented high correlation values, and the error observed did not seem to compromise the several measures that use heart rate as a parameter. Conclusions. It is possible to conclude that heart rate monitoring by the Instant Heart Rate ® application on iPhone/iOs ® and Lenovo/Android ® operating system smartphones can be performed safely during exercise, with the Lenovo/Android ® base being even more reliable than the iPhone/iOs ® system.

The aim of the study was to compare maximum oxygen uptake, maximum heart rate, speed corresponding to VO2max, time to exhaustion, and ventilatory thresholds between two maximal test protocols (scaled vs ramp) with equalized metabolic demand in apparently healthy young adults. Twenty-seven subjects of both sexes were analyzed and submitted to two maximum tests: 1) scaled test with 1.2 km∙h-1 every 2 min; 2) ramp test with 0.1 km∙h-1 every 0.18 min; both with 1% slope and maximum total duration of twenty minutes. Respiratory gas exchanges were directly analyzed, and ventilatory thresholds determined through visual inspection. Central tendency and dispersion measures were adopted, as well as paired t-test and effect size. Bland-Altman analysis verified the agreement among variables. Maximum speed showed significance difference (p < 0.01) for the scaled test (14.0 ± 1.9 km∙h-1) and ramp test (14.6 ± 2.3 km∙h-1). Even with small BIAS values, negative trend and high limits of agreement could be observed. Despite the non-difference presented for variables, except for maximum speed, it could be concluded that the scaled test is able to determine the analyzed variables similar to the ramp test, considering the same conditions of the present study.

No abstract