Abstract
ABSTRACT We assessed the accuracy and inter-sessional reliability of traditional (manual) compared to automatic (AutoHR) heart rate (HR) clamping methods during submaximal intensity continuous cycling. On separate occasions, thirteen males cycled at an HR corresponding to 80% of the ventilatory threshold for 18 min. Cycling power output was adjusted using either manual or AutoHR methods, encompassing three trials per method. For the manual method, cycling power output was adjusted every 30 s by 0, 5 or 10 W at the experimenter’s discretion. Conversely, AutoHR automatically adjusted power output based on the difference between target and actual HR. Participants’ HR was measured at 1 Hz. Root-mean square error (RMSE) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated from the difference between measured and target HR to represent accuracy and reliability of each method. The RMSE for the manual method (3.2 ± 2.6 bpm) was significantly higher compared to AutoHR (2.8 ± 2.3 bpm) (p < 0.01, r = 0.13); inter-day ICC were 0.92 and 0.89 for manual adjustment and AutoHR, respectively. Automatic methods to clamp HR are more accurate than manual approaches during submaximal intensity continuous cycling and can be easily implemented for uniform HR control in individual and group training sessions at minimal cost.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.