Reproducibility of Heart Rate Variability Indices at Post-maximal Exercise

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>To analyze whether heart rate variability is reproducible after maximal exercise, 11 men (22.1±3.2 years) performed four incremental exercise tests followed by passive or active recovery. There was high reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation: 0.72–0.96) and fair-to-excellent agreement (coefficient of variation: 7.81–22.09%) in passive recovery, as well as moderate-to-high reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation: 0.50–0.87) and good agreement (coefficient of variation: 11.08–20.89%) in active recovery for LnRMSSD index. There was moderate-to-high reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation: 0.51–0.81) and good agreement (coefficient of variation: 10.41–18.87%) in most of the analyzed time points, in both recovery types for LnSDNN. In both types of recovery, the time domain heart rate variability 5–10 min indices (passive: intraclass coefficient correlation : 0.87–0.88; coefficient of variation: 7.67–13.44%; active: intraclass coefficient correlation 0.59–0.80; coefficient of variation: 14.62–16.26%) presented higher intraclass coefficient correlation and lower coefficient of variation than the spectral heart rate variability indices (passive: intraclass coefficient correlation: 0.71–0.87; coefficient of variation: 12.33–34.21%; active: intraclass coefficient correlation: 0.46–0.77; coefficient of variation: 24.41–105.12%). The LnRMSSD and LnSDNN indices analyzed in 30 s segments and the heart rate variability 5–10 min indices after maximal exercise in untrained healthy men showed satisfactory reproducibility, regardless of the type of recovery, with the time-domain indices showing higher reproducibility than the frequency-domain indices.</jats:p>

Post-Exercise Recovery of Ultra-Short-Term Heart Rate Variability after Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test and Repeated Sprint Ability Test

“…However, acceptable levels of validity, and tight limits of agreement, were found in the 1-min HRV UST during resting and post-exercise recovery. Another recent study revealed high reproducibility of test-retest 30-s HRV UST recordings via LnSDNN, LnRMSSD parameters at the beginning of passive or active recovery after maximal graded cycling test [37]. As demonstrated in our findings, the HRV UST measures showed trivial and small ES, very large and nearly perfect ICC values, and a very high level of correlation to HRV criterion , even at the beginning of the post-exercise recovery.…”

“…The correlation coefficient between the HRV UST of LnSDNN:LnRMSSD ratio and the HRV criterion of LnLF:LnHF ratio found in the present study led us to accept our secondary hypothesis. The advantage in using time-domain HRV indices is that it allows for high reproducibility when compared to that of frequency-domain HRV indices during post-exercise recovery [37]. The ratio of SDNN:RMSSD as an alternative of LF:HF ratio has previously been recommended in a longitudinal observation [39] and a cross-sectional study [26].…”

Parasympathetic Nervous Activity Responses to Different Resistance Training Systems

“…The participants were instructed to relax and breathe at a natural rate to maintain a pattern. In the post-session, data collection started 30 min post-exercise to avoid the effect of the excessive in-creased respiratory rate on the autonomic parameters; and the respiratory breathing rate was not controlled because doing so would perturb the natural return of heart rate to resting levels [15,16]. The reliability of the R-R interval, RMSSD, SDNN, and pNN50 was obtained on visits two and three (i. e., between days) separated by 48 h. Intra-day reliability (e. g., pre-and post-maximal exercise) was recently demonstrated by Araujo et al [16].…”

Changes in Pulmonary Function After Long-duration Adventure Racing in Adolescent Athletes

“…Relative reliability for FVC, FEV 1 , MIP and MEP values was assessed via the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Reliability was considered to be very high with an ICC ≥ 0.90, high with an ICC between 0.70 and 0.89, and moderate with an ICC between 0.50 and 0.69 [27]. Absolute reliability was assessed via the coefficient of variation (CV, %).…”

“…Absolute reliability was assessed via the coefficient of variation (CV, %). A CV of < 10 % was considered excellent, ≥ 10 and < 20 % was considered good, ≥ 20 and < 30 % was considered fair, and ≥ 30 % was considered poor [27]. The ICC and CV % were calculated using SPSS 27.0 software (IBM, Inc., United Kingdom).…”