Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) may be useful for prescribing high-intensity functional training (HIFT) exercise programs. This study aimed to compare effects of HRV-guided and predetermined HIFT on cardiovascular function, body composition, and performance. Methods: Recreationally-active adults (n = 55) were randomly assigned to predetermined HIFT (n = 29, age = 24.1 ± 4.1 years) or HRV-guided HIFT (n = 26, age = 23.7 ± 4.5) groups. Both groups completed 11 weeks of daily HRV recordings, 6 weeks of HIFT (5 d·week-1), and pre- and post-test body composition and fitness assessments. Meaningful changes in resting HRV were used to modulate (i.e., reduce) HRV-guided participants’ exercise intensity. Linear mixed models were used with Bonferroni post hoc adjustment for analysis. Results: All participants significantly improved resting heart rate, lean mass, fat mass, strength, and work capacity. However, no significant between-groups differences were observed for cardiovascular function, body composition, or fitness changes. The HRV-guided group spent significantly fewer training days at high intensity (mean difference = −13.56 ± 0.83 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: HRV-guided HIFT produced similar improvements in cardiovascular function, body composition, and fitness as predetermined HIFT, despite fewer days at high intensity. HRV shows promise for prescribing individualized exercise intensity during HIFT.
Highlights
The HRVguided training resulted in similar changes in cardiovascular function, body composition, and performance as the predetermined training (Table 3 & Figure 1)
These findings are of interest as they demonstrate that Heart rate variability (HRV)-guided training results in similar improvements across fitness outcomes while spending fewer training sessions at high intensity compared to a predetermined prescription
Modulating high-intensity functional training (HIFT) exercise intensity by individual HRV status, among recreationally active participants, resulted in similar fitness improvements as predetermined HIFT for aerobic capacity, strength, cardiovascular adaptations, and body composition, despite spending fewer days training at high intensity
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Exercise training programs relying on predetermined volume and intensity often result in heterogeneous fitness outcomes across individuals [1]. To maximize training potential, employing an individualized training program is the most practical applied strategy [2]. An important factor in individualizing training and reducing the risk of maladaptation, is the ability to effectively monitor responses to training stressors [3]. Training stress is often described as the input variable that is manipulated to elicit a desired physiological response and is categorized as either external (e.g., speed, repetitions) or internal (e.g., heart rate, lactate) load [4,5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
