Validity of simplified, calibration-less exercise intensity measurement using resting heart rate during sleep: A method-comparison study with respiratory gas analysis

Hirotaka Matsuura, Masahiko Mukaino, Yohei Otaka, Hitoshi Kagaya, Yasushi Aoshima, Takuya Suzuki, Ayaka Inukai, Emi Hattori, Takayuki Ogasawara, Eiichi Saitoh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The recent development of wearable devices has enabled easy and continuous measurement of heart rate (HR). Exercise intensity can be calculated from HR with indices such as percent HR reserve (%HRR); however, this requires an accurate measurement of resting HR, which can be time-consuming. The use of HR during sleep may be a substitute that considers the calibration-less measurement of %HRR. This study examined the validity of %HRR on resting HR during sleep in comparison to percent oxygen consumption reserve (%VO2R) as a gold standard. Additionally, a 24/7%HRR measurement using this method is demonstrated. Methods: Twelve healthy adults aged 29 ± 5 years underwent treadmill testing using the Bruce protocol and a 6-min walk test (6MWT). The %VO2R during each test was calculated according to a standard protocol. The %HRR during each exercise test was calculated either from resting HR in a sitting position (%HRRsitting), when lying awake (%HRRlying), or during sleep (%HRRsleeping). Differences between %VO2R and %HRR values were examined using Bland-Altman plots. A 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement with three healthy adults was also conducted. The %HRR values during working days and holidays were compared. Results: In the treadmill testing, the mean difference between %VO2R and %HRRsleeping was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.2 to 3.6%). The %HRRsitting and %HRRlying values were 10.8% (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.7%) and 7.7% (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.9%), respectively. In the 6MWT, mean differences between %VO2R and %HRRsitting, %HRRlying and %HRRsleeping were 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0 to 15.5%), 7.0% (95% CI, 4.0 to 10.0%) and - 2.9% (95% CI, - 5.0% to - 0.7%), respectively. The 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement presented significant differences in %HRR patterns between working days and holidays in all three participants. Conclusions: The results suggest %HRRsleeping is valid in comparison to %VO2R. The results may encourage a calibration-less, 24/7 measurement model of exercise intensity using wearable devices. Trial registration: UMIN000034967. Registered 21 November 2018 (retrospectively registered).

Original languageEnglish
Article number27
JournalBMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 04-11-2019

Fingerprint

Calibration
Sleep
Heart Rate
Gases
Exercise
Confidence Intervals
Holidays
Equipment and Supplies
Posture
Exercise Test
Oxygen Consumption

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

@article{e7c6bac81ea04b2bad2297e508358293,
title = "Validity of simplified, calibration-less exercise intensity measurement using resting heart rate during sleep: A method-comparison study with respiratory gas analysis",
abstract = "Background: The recent development of wearable devices has enabled easy and continuous measurement of heart rate (HR). Exercise intensity can be calculated from HR with indices such as percent HR reserve ({\%}HRR); however, this requires an accurate measurement of resting HR, which can be time-consuming. The use of HR during sleep may be a substitute that considers the calibration-less measurement of {\%}HRR. This study examined the validity of {\%}HRR on resting HR during sleep in comparison to percent oxygen consumption reserve ({\%}VO2R) as a gold standard. Additionally, a 24/7{\%}HRR measurement using this method is demonstrated. Methods: Twelve healthy adults aged 29 ± 5 years underwent treadmill testing using the Bruce protocol and a 6-min walk test (6MWT). The {\%}VO2R during each test was calculated according to a standard protocol. The {\%}HRR during each exercise test was calculated either from resting HR in a sitting position ({\%}HRRsitting), when lying awake ({\%}HRRlying), or during sleep ({\%}HRRsleeping). Differences between {\%}VO2R and {\%}HRR values were examined using Bland-Altman plots. A 180-day, 24/7{\%}HRR measurement with three healthy adults was also conducted. The {\%}HRR values during working days and holidays were compared. Results: In the treadmill testing, the mean difference between {\%}VO2R and {\%}HRRsleeping was 1.7{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], - 0.2 to 3.6{\%}). The {\%}HRRsitting and {\%}HRRlying values were 10.8{\%} (95{\%} CI, 8.8 to 12.7{\%}) and 7.7{\%} (95{\%} CI, 5.4 to 9.9{\%}), respectively. In the 6MWT, mean differences between {\%}VO2R and {\%}HRRsitting, {\%}HRRlying and {\%}HRRsleeping were 12.7{\%} (95{\%} CI, 10.0 to 15.5{\%}), 7.0{\%} (95{\%} CI, 4.0 to 10.0{\%}) and - 2.9{\%} (95{\%} CI, - 5.0{\%} to - 0.7{\%}), respectively. The 180-day, 24/7{\%}HRR measurement presented significant differences in {\%}HRR patterns between working days and holidays in all three participants. Conclusions: The results suggest {\%}HRRsleeping is valid in comparison to {\%}VO2R. The results may encourage a calibration-less, 24/7 measurement model of exercise intensity using wearable devices. Trial registration: UMIN000034967. Registered 21 November 2018 (retrospectively registered).",
author = "Hirotaka Matsuura and Masahiko Mukaino and Yohei Otaka and Hitoshi Kagaya and Yasushi Aoshima and Takuya Suzuki and Ayaka Inukai and Emi Hattori and Takayuki Ogasawara and Eiichi Saitoh",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1186/s13102-019-0140-x",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "2052-1847",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Validity of simplified, calibration-less exercise intensity measurement using resting heart rate during sleep : A method-comparison study with respiratory gas analysis. / Matsuura, Hirotaka; Mukaino, Masahiko; Otaka, Yohei; Kagaya, Hitoshi; Aoshima, Yasushi; Suzuki, Takuya; Inukai, Ayaka; Hattori, Emi; Ogasawara, Takayuki; Saitoh, Eiichi.

In: BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 11, No. 1, 27, 04.11.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of simplified, calibration-less exercise intensity measurement using resting heart rate during sleep

T2 - A method-comparison study with respiratory gas analysis

AU - Matsuura, Hirotaka

AU - Mukaino, Masahiko

AU - Otaka, Yohei

AU - Kagaya, Hitoshi

AU - Aoshima, Yasushi

AU - Suzuki, Takuya

AU - Inukai, Ayaka

AU - Hattori, Emi

AU - Ogasawara, Takayuki

AU - Saitoh, Eiichi

PY - 2019/11/4

Y1 - 2019/11/4

N2 - Background: The recent development of wearable devices has enabled easy and continuous measurement of heart rate (HR). Exercise intensity can be calculated from HR with indices such as percent HR reserve (%HRR); however, this requires an accurate measurement of resting HR, which can be time-consuming. The use of HR during sleep may be a substitute that considers the calibration-less measurement of %HRR. This study examined the validity of %HRR on resting HR during sleep in comparison to percent oxygen consumption reserve (%VO2R) as a gold standard. Additionally, a 24/7%HRR measurement using this method is demonstrated. Methods: Twelve healthy adults aged 29 ± 5 years underwent treadmill testing using the Bruce protocol and a 6-min walk test (6MWT). The %VO2R during each test was calculated according to a standard protocol. The %HRR during each exercise test was calculated either from resting HR in a sitting position (%HRRsitting), when lying awake (%HRRlying), or during sleep (%HRRsleeping). Differences between %VO2R and %HRR values were examined using Bland-Altman plots. A 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement with three healthy adults was also conducted. The %HRR values during working days and holidays were compared. Results: In the treadmill testing, the mean difference between %VO2R and %HRRsleeping was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.2 to 3.6%). The %HRRsitting and %HRRlying values were 10.8% (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.7%) and 7.7% (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.9%), respectively. In the 6MWT, mean differences between %VO2R and %HRRsitting, %HRRlying and %HRRsleeping were 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0 to 15.5%), 7.0% (95% CI, 4.0 to 10.0%) and - 2.9% (95% CI, - 5.0% to - 0.7%), respectively. The 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement presented significant differences in %HRR patterns between working days and holidays in all three participants. Conclusions: The results suggest %HRRsleeping is valid in comparison to %VO2R. The results may encourage a calibration-less, 24/7 measurement model of exercise intensity using wearable devices. Trial registration: UMIN000034967. Registered 21 November 2018 (retrospectively registered).

AB - Background: The recent development of wearable devices has enabled easy and continuous measurement of heart rate (HR). Exercise intensity can be calculated from HR with indices such as percent HR reserve (%HRR); however, this requires an accurate measurement of resting HR, which can be time-consuming. The use of HR during sleep may be a substitute that considers the calibration-less measurement of %HRR. This study examined the validity of %HRR on resting HR during sleep in comparison to percent oxygen consumption reserve (%VO2R) as a gold standard. Additionally, a 24/7%HRR measurement using this method is demonstrated. Methods: Twelve healthy adults aged 29 ± 5 years underwent treadmill testing using the Bruce protocol and a 6-min walk test (6MWT). The %VO2R during each test was calculated according to a standard protocol. The %HRR during each exercise test was calculated either from resting HR in a sitting position (%HRRsitting), when lying awake (%HRRlying), or during sleep (%HRRsleeping). Differences between %VO2R and %HRR values were examined using Bland-Altman plots. A 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement with three healthy adults was also conducted. The %HRR values during working days and holidays were compared. Results: In the treadmill testing, the mean difference between %VO2R and %HRRsleeping was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.2 to 3.6%). The %HRRsitting and %HRRlying values were 10.8% (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.7%) and 7.7% (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.9%), respectively. In the 6MWT, mean differences between %VO2R and %HRRsitting, %HRRlying and %HRRsleeping were 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0 to 15.5%), 7.0% (95% CI, 4.0 to 10.0%) and - 2.9% (95% CI, - 5.0% to - 0.7%), respectively. The 180-day, 24/7%HRR measurement presented significant differences in %HRR patterns between working days and holidays in all three participants. Conclusions: The results suggest %HRRsleeping is valid in comparison to %VO2R. The results may encourage a calibration-less, 24/7 measurement model of exercise intensity using wearable devices. Trial registration: UMIN000034967. Registered 21 November 2018 (retrospectively registered).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074397660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074397660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13102-019-0140-x

DO - 10.1186/s13102-019-0140-x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85074397660

VL - 11

JO - BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 2052-1847

IS - 1

M1 - 27

ER -