3.8 Article

Heart rate recovery from submaximal exercise in boys and girls

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 35, Issue 12, Pages 2093-2097

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000099180.80952.83

Keywords

cardiorespiratory fitness; children; cardiac responses; peak VO2

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the changes in heart rate (HR) after two different submaximal exercise bouts in boys and girls, Methods: Eleven boys (10.5 +/- 1.0 yr) and 10 girls (10.8 +/- 0.7 yr) participated in this study. Each child completed an initial graded exercise test to determine peak VO2. On subsequent and separate days, a 5-min submaximal exercise bout on a cycle ergometer was performed. One bout was conducted at 70 W, and the other bout corresponded to an intensity of 85-90% of peak VO2. VO2 and HR were measured during and after (1 min and 3 min). HR recovery responses from each submaximal exercise bout were analyzed using a group by time ANOVA, and Pearson-product correlations were determined between resting HR, peak VO2, and postexercise HR responses. Results: HR in the boys was lower at the end of exercise and the first minute of recovery versus girls but not at the 3rd min of recovery. There were no differences in HR recovery after the relative exercise bout. Resting HR was significantly correlated with postexercise HR from both bouts (r = 0.52-0.69), whereas peak VO2 did not correlate to postexercise HR. ANCOVA using resting HR as the covariate eliminated the gender different noted with the recovery from the 70-W bout. Conclusions: In summary, postexercise HR responses differed between boys and girls when submaximal exercise was performed at an absolute work rate. When exercise was performed at a relative intensity, HR recovery responses were similar between the two groups. Resting HR appears to account for variations in postexercise HR better than peak VO2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available