Comparison of nine heart rate-based models to predict work metabolism of Forest workers

Abstract

Predicted work metabolism (WM) from 9 heart rate (HR)-based models were compared to measured WM obtained during work in 39 forest workers. Using measured (i.e. raw) HR in these models can overestimate actual WM since the HR increase associated with body heat accumulation is non-metabolic. Hence, accuracy of WM prediction was assessed on all possible combinations of models using raw HR and corrected HR (thermal component removed) and with five different estimates of maximum work capacity (MWC) for the models that require it as an input. The 50 model combinations produced a wide range of WM estimates. Three models using individual calibration produced the lowest RMSE and narrowest LoA with corrected HR (rRMSE ≤13%; LoA [rBias <5% ± 25%]). One of the models that requires neither determination of the thermal component nor individual calibration performed very well (rRMSE = 18%; LoA [rBias = 1% ± 36%]). Practitioner Summary: These results provide a better understanding of the accuracy of various HR-based work metabolism (WM) estimation models. This information should prove particularly useful to ergonomics professionals wishing to select a method that provides accurate estimation of WM from HR measurements during work in varied thermal environments. Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; HR: heart rate (beats per min); HR99: HR value exceeded during 99% of the duration of the HR recording period; HRcorr: heart rate without thermal pulses; HRraw: measured heart rate; HRres: heart rate reserve; HRrest: heart rate at rest; LoA: limits of agreement; Mrest: resting metabolism; MWC: maximum work capacity; RMSE: root mean square error; VO2: oxygen consumption; VO2 max: maximum oxygen consumption; WM: work metabolism