Display options
Cite
Haller JM, Fehling PC, Barr DA, et al. Use of the HR index to predict maximal oxygen uptake during different exercise protocols. Physiol Rep. 2013;1(5):e00124doi: 10.1002/phy2.124.
Haller, J. M., Fehling, P. C., Barr, D. A., Storer, T. W., Cooper, C. B., & Smith, D. L. (2013). Use of the HR index to predict maximal oxygen uptake during different exercise protocols. Physiological reports, 1(5), e00124. https://doi.org/10.1002/phy2.124
Haller, Jeannie M, et al. "Use of the HR index to predict maximal oxygen uptake during different exercise protocols." Physiological reports vol. 1,5 (2013): e00124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/phy2.124
Haller JM, Fehling PC, Barr DA, Storer TW, Cooper CB, Smith DL. Use of the HR index to predict maximal oxygen uptake during different exercise protocols. Physiol Rep. 2013 Oct;1(5):e00124. doi: 10.1002/phy2.124. Epub 2013 Oct 23. PMID: 24303190; PMCID: PMC3841054.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Physiol Rep. 2013 Oct;1(5):e00124. doi: 10.1002/phy2.124. Epub 2013 Oct 23.

Use of the HR index to predict maximal oxygen uptake during different exercise protocols.

Physiological reports

Jeannie M Haller, Patricia C Fehling, David A Barr, Thomas W Storer, Christopher B Cooper, Denise L Smith

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health and Exercise Sciences, Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, New York.

PMID: 24303190 PMCID: PMC3841054 DOI: 10.1002/phy2.124

Abstract

This study examined the ability of the HRindex model to accurately predict maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) across a variety of incremental exercise protocols. Ten men completed five incremental protocols to volitional exhaustion. Protocols included three treadmill (Bruce, UCLA running, Wellness Fitness Initiative [WFI]), one cycle, and one field (shuttle) test. The HRindex prediction equation (METs = 6 × HRindex - 5, where HRindex = HRmax/HRrest) was used to generate estimates of energy expenditure, which were converted to body mass-specific estimates of [Formula: see text]O2max. Estimated [Formula: see text]O2max was compared with measured [Formula: see text]O2max. Across all protocols, the HRindex model significantly underestimated [Formula: see text]O2max by 5.1 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) (95% CI: -7.4, -2.7) and the standard error of the estimate (SEE) was 6.7 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1). Accuracy of the model was protocol-dependent, with [Formula: see text]O2max significantly underestimated for the Bruce and WFI protocols but not the UCLA, Cycle, or Shuttle protocols. Although no significant differences in [Formula: see text]O2max estimates were identified for these three protocols, predictive accuracy among them was not high, with root mean squared errors and SEEs ranging from 7.6 to 10.3 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) and from 4.5 to 8.0 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1), respectively. Correlations between measured and predicted [Formula: see text]O2max were between 0.27 and 0.53. Individual prediction errors indicated that prediction accuracy varied considerably within protocols and among participants. In conclusion, across various protocols the HRindex model significantly underestimated [Formula: see text]O2max in a group of aerobically fit young men. Estimates generated using the model did not differ from measured [Formula: see text]O2max for three of the five protocols studied; nevertheless, some individual prediction errors were large. The lack of precision among estimates may limit the utility of the HRindex model; however, further investigation to establish the model's predictive accuracy is warranted.

Keywords: Cardiorespiratory fitness; exercise testing; prediction equation; resting heart rate

References

  1. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(1):21-5 - PubMed
  2. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 May;42(5):985-90 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jan;91(1):111-5 - PubMed
  4. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377-81 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1980;43(3):243-51 - PubMed
  6. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005 Sep;99(3):1112-9 - PubMed
  7. J Appl Physiol. 1965 Sep;20(5):1070-3 - PubMed
  8. JAMA. 1989 Nov 3;262(17):2395-401 - PubMed
  9. J Appl Physiol. 1971 Apr;30(4):457-61 - PubMed
  10. U S Armed Forces Med J. 1959 Jun;10(6):675-88 - PubMed
  11. Med Sci Sports. 1970 Fall;2(3):118-23 - PubMed
  12. Sports Med. 2003;33(7):517-38 - PubMed
  13. J Appl Physiol. 1969 Jan;26(1):31-7 - PubMed
  14. J Appl Physiol. 1955 Jul;8(1):73-80 - PubMed
  15. Physiol Rev. 1956 Jul;36(3):307-35 - PubMed
  16. Int J Sports Med. 2003 Jul;24(5):332-6 - PubMed
  17. Am Heart J. 1973 Apr;85(4):546-62 - PubMed
  18. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Oct;43(10):2005-12 - PubMed
  19. Hum Biol. 1981 May;53(2):181-225 - PubMed
  20. Sports Med. 1984 Mar-Apr;1(2):99-124 - PubMed
  21. J Appl Physiol. 1954 Sep;7(2):218-21 - PubMed
  22. Br J Sports Med. 2011 May;45(6):504-10 - PubMed
  23. Int J Sports Med. 1982 Feb;3(1):43-6 - PubMed
  24. J Appl Physiol. 1974 Jun;36(6):720-5 - PubMed
  25. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Aug;31(8):1226-9 - PubMed
  26. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1990 Sep;30(3):268-75 - PubMed
  27. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Feb;39(2):377-90 - PubMed
  28. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995 Mar;27(3):445-51 - PubMed
  29. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990 Oct;22(5):704-12 - PubMed
  30. Am Heart J. 1984 Jun;107(6):1229-34 - PubMed
  31. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1978 Mar;18(1):25-32 - PubMed
  32. JAMA. 1968 Jan 15;203(3):201-4 - PubMed
  33. J Sports Sci. 1988 Summer;6(2):93-101 - PubMed
  34. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1958;10(1):67-71 - PubMed
  35. Br J Sports Med. 1984 Jun;18(2):74-9 - PubMed
  36. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995 Sep;27(9):1292-301 - PubMed
  37. JAMA. 2009 May 20;301(19):2024-35 - PubMed
  38. Am J Clin Nutr. 1971 Sep;24(9):1139-47 - PubMed

Publication Types