Validity of the Maximal Heart Rate Prediction Models among Runners and Cyclists

Abstract

Maximal heart rate (HRmax) is a widely used measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. Prediction of HRmax is an alternative to cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), but its accuracy among endurance athletes (EA) requires evaluation. This study aimed to externally validate HRmax prediction models in the EA independently for running and cycling CPET. 4043 runners (age=33.58 (8.12) years; 83.53% males; BMI=23.66 (2.54) kg·m−2) and 1026 cyclists (age=36.88 (9.03) years; 89.67% males; BMI=24.04 (2.65) kg·m−2) underwent maximum CPET. Student t-test, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error (RMSE) were applied to externally validate 8 running and 5 cycling HRmax equations. HRmax was 184.60 (9.79) beats·min−1 and 182.66 (10.28) beats·min−1 respectively for running and cycling, p=0.001. Measured and predicted HRmax differed significantly (p=0.001) for 9 of 13 (69.23%) models. HRmax was overestimated by 8 (61.54%) and underestimated by 5 (38.46%) formulae. Overestimated HRmax ranged 0.08-4.94 beats·min−1 and underestimated HRmax ranged 0.03-4.90 beats·min−1. MAE and RMSE were 0.18-4.94 beats·min−1 and 9.13-10.47, respectively. MAPE ranged 3.95-4.69%. Prediction models do not allow for accurate estimation of HRmax. HRmax was more often underestimated than overestimated. Predicted HRmax can be implemented for EA as a supplemental method but CPET is the preferable approach.