3.8 Article

Heart rate variability in athletes:: relationship with central and peripheral performance

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1394-1398

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200108000-00023

关键词

parasympathetic; autonomic; fitness; training; aerobic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate relationships between heart rate variability (HRV) and peripheral and central performance measures, 17 cross-country (X-C) skiers and seven canoeists were studied before and after a training period of 7 months. Methods: For the skiers and canoeists respectively, leg and arm peak torque (Tq), time to peak torque (TiTq), and total work (Wrk) were measured in an isokinetic dynamometer. Maximal oxygen uptakes ((V) over dot O-2max) were obtained from treadmill tests. Power spectral analysis of HRV was performed on electrocardiographic recordings in the resting supine position and after a tilt to yield power in the low-frequency (0.04-0.15 Hz) and high-frequency (0.15-0.45 Hz) components of HRV. Results: The change in normalized LF-variability in standing (Delta LFnT) correlated (P < 0.01) with the changes in TiTq (r = 0.63). max lactate (r = -0.631), and (V) over dot O-2max (r = -0.53). The change in absolute LFT was inversely correlated with the change in Tq. Subjects who improved (V) over dot O-2max, were characterized by consistently higher high-frequency and total HRV than subjects with deteriorated aerobic capacity (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The results suggest that improved measures of both peripheral and central (aerobic) work capacities were associated with a reduction of low-frequency HRV in the tilted position. High-frequency and total HRV did not change in proportion with changes in muscle performance or aerobic capacity, but the ability to further improve (V) over dot O-2max. with training in these already fit subjects seemed to depend on their average levels of these FIRM measures, interpreted to reflect parasympathetic activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据