5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Heart Rate Variability Monitoring During Strength and High-Intensity Interval Training Overload Microcycles

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective: In two independent study arms, we determine the effects of strength training (ST) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) overload on cardiac autonomic modulation by measuring heart rate (HR) and vagal heart rate variability (HRV).

          Methods: In the study, 37 well-trained athletes (ST: 7 female, 12 male; HIIT: 9 female, 9 male) were subjected to orthostatic tests (HR and HRV recordings) each day during a 4-day baseline period, a 6-day overload microcycle, and a 4-day recovery period. Discipline-specific performance was assessed before and 1 and 4 days after training.

          Results: Following ST overload, supine HR, and vagal HRV (Ln RMSSD) were clearly increased and decreased (small effects), respectively, and the standing recordings remained unchanged. In contrast, HIIT overload resulted in decreased HR and increased Ln RMSSD in the standing position (small effects), whereas supine recordings remained unaltered. During the recovery period, these responses were reversed (ST: small effects, HIIT: trivial to small effects). The correlations between changes in HR, vagal HRV measures, and performance were weak or inconsistent. At the group and individual levels, moderate to strong negative correlations were found between HR and Ln RMSSD when analyzing changes between testing days (ST: supine and standing position, HIIT: standing position) and individual time series, respectively. Use of rolling 2–4-day averages enabled more precise estimation of mean changes with smaller confidence intervals compared to single-day values of HR or Ln RMSSD. However, the use of averaged values displayed unclear effects for evaluating associations between HR, vagal HRV measures, and performance changes, and have the potential to be detrimental for classification of individual short-term responses.

          Conclusion: Measures of HR and Ln RMSSD during an orthostatic test could reveal different autonomic responses following ST or HIIT which may not be discovered by supine or standing measures alone. However, these autonomic changes were not consistently related to short-term changes in performance and the use of rolling averages may alter these relationships differently on group and individual level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes

          Many athletes, coaches, and support staff are taking an increasingly scientific approach to both designing and monitoring training programs. Appropriate load monitoring can aid in determining whether an athlete is adapting to a training program and in minimizing the risk of developing non-functional overreaching, illness, and/or injury. In order to gain an understanding of the training load and its effect on the athlete, a number of potential markers are available for use. However, very few of these markers have strong scientific evidence supporting their use, and there is yet to be a single, definitive marker described in the literature. Research has investigated a number of external load quantifying and monitoring tools, such as power output measuring devices, time-motion analysis, as well as internal load unit measures, including perception of effort, heart rate, blood lactate, and training impulse. Dissociation between external and internal load units may reveal the state of fatigue of an athlete. Other monitoring tools used by high-performance programs include heart rate recovery, neuromuscular function, biochemical/hormonal/immunological assessments, questionnaires and diaries, psychomotor speed, and sleep quality and quantity. The monitoring approach taken with athletes may depend on whether the athlete is engaging in individual or team sport activity; however, the importance of individualization of load monitoring cannot be over emphasized. Detecting meaningful changes with scientific and statistical approaches can provide confidence and certainty when implementing change. Appropriate monitoring of training load can provide important information to athletes and coaches; however, monitoring systems should be intuitive, provide efficient data analysis and interpretation, and enable efficient reporting of simple, yet scientifically valid, feedback.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine.

            Successful training not only must involve overload but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short-term performance decrement without severe psychological or lasting other negative symptoms. This functional overreaching will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and overtraining syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal, and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be "prolonged maladaptation" not only of the athlete but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline, and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirm or refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the etiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, and others together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this article, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently, several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, and biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meet all the criteria to make their use generally accepted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement.

              Monitoring the load placed on athletes in both training and competition has become a very hot topic in sport science. Both scientists and coaches routinely monitor training loads using multidisciplinary approaches, and the pursuit of the best methodologies to capture and interpret data has produced an exponential increase in empirical and applied research. Indeed, the field has developed with such speed in recent years that it has given rise to industries aimed at developing new and novel paradigms to allow us to precisely quantify the internal and external loads placed on athletes and to help protect them from injury and ill health. In February 2016, a conference on "Monitoring Athlete Training Loads-The Hows and the Whys" was convened in Doha, Qatar, which brought together experts from around the world to share their applied research and contemporary practices in this rapidly growing field and also to investigate where it may branch to in the future. This consensus statement brings together the key findings and recommendations from this conference in a shared conceptual framework for use by coaches, sport-science and -medicine staff, and other related professionals who have an interest in monitoring athlete training loads and serves to provide an outline on what athlete-load monitoring is and how it is being applied in research and practice, why load monitoring is important and what the underlying rationale and prospective goals of monitoring are, and where athlete-load monitoring is heading in the future.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Physiol
                Front Physiol
                Front. Physiol.
                Frontiers in Physiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-042X
                22 May 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 582
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Training and Exercise Science, Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr University Bochum , Bochum, Germany
                [2] 2Department of Health Sciences and Kinesiology, Biodynamics and Human Performance Center, Georgia Southern University , Savannah, GA, United States
                [3] 3Center for Sports and Physical Education, Julius-Maximilians-University , Würzburg, Germany
                [4] 4Hertha Berliner Sport-Club , Berlin, Germany
                [5] 5Unit of Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr University Bochum , Bochum, Germany
                [6] 6School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland , St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
                [7] 7Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine, Saarland University , Saarbrücken, Germany
                [8] 8Department Theory and Practice of Sports, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz , Mainz, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Alessandro Moura Zagatto, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP), Brazil

                Reviewed by: Tiago Peçanha, University of São Paulo, Brazil; David Herzig, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland; Diego Christofaro, São Paulo State University, Brazil

                *Correspondence: Christoph Schneider christoph.schneider-a5c@ 123456ruhr-uni-bochum.de

                This article was submitted to Exercise Physiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Physiology

                Article
                10.3389/fphys.2019.00582
                6538885
                31178746
                09c9d2c3-abe9-440c-9506-4eb9ca468d18
                Copyright © 2019 Schneider, Wiewelhove, Raeder, Flatt, Hoos, Hottenrott, Schumbera, Kellmann, Meyer, Pfeiffer and Ferrauti.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 January 2019
                : 25 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 7, Equations: 1, References: 95, Pages: 19, Words: 15030
                Categories
                Physiology
                Original Research

                Anatomy & Physiology
                orthostatic test,cardiac autonomic nervous system,fatigue,recovery,individual response,multivariate analysis,resistance training,overreaching

                Comments

                Comment on this article