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
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).
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
SN - 2052-1847
VL - 11
JO - BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
JF - BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
IS - 1
M1 - 27
ER -