Heart Rate Recovery Varies by Sport and Position, but Not Gender, Among Collegiate Athletes

Abstract

Heart rate recovery (HRR) has been suggested as a useful tool to monitor fitness in athletes. Minimal data exists, however, regarding differences in HRR between sports, genders or positions, and there is currently no consensus regarding how to calculate HRR. PURPOSE: To determine whether HRR differs between sports, genders and position among collegiate athletes, and if these differences depend on the HRR calculation method employed. METHODS: 47 female (soccer=18, basketball=9, hockey=20) and 22 male (all soccer) NCAA Division 1 athletes completed exercise testing prior to the start of their respective seasons. Heart rate was monitored continuously during a 5-minute period of supine rest and maximal treadmill testing, followed immediately by 5 minutes of walking at 1.7mph with 0% incline to determine resting heart rate (HRrest), maximal heart rate (HRmax), and heart rate reserve (HRres). HRR was calculated at 10 seconds, 30 seconds, and then each minute during recovery as both a percentage of HRmax (HRR%max) and HRres (HRR%res). All participants obtained at least 2 out of 3 objective criteria during treadmill testing: 1) RER ≥ 1.1, 2) plateau in VO2, and 3) attainment of ≥90% of age-predicted HRmax. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare average HRR over time among female athletes by sport (hockey, basketball, soccer), and by gender and position [goalkeeper (GK), defender (D), midfielder (M), forward (F)] among soccer players. RESULTS: Using HR%max, basketball demonstrated slower HRR than hockey (78.2 v. 75.8%, p=0.017), but no other differences were noted. When expressed as HRR%res, basketball demonstrated slower HRR than soccer (67.4 v. 65.3%, p=0.49) and hockey (67.4 v 64.6%, p=0.013). No differences in HRR were noted between positions using HRR%max. When expressed as HRR%res, GK and D demonstrated faster recovery than F (63.5 v. 66.1%, p=0.013; 64.7 v 66.1%, p=0.005, respectively). No differences were identified between females and males using HRR%max (75.8 v. 75.8%, p=0.95) or HRR%res (65.4 v 65.3%, p=0.40). CONCLUSION: Among collegiate athletes, HRR differs by sport and position, but not by gender. Differences in HRR may be better identified when expressed in terms of HRres than HRmax. This has potential implications for the proper use and interpretation of HRR as a monitoring tool among athletes.