PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12974657

Heart rate variability in athletes.

Abstract

This review examines the influence on heart rate variability (HRV) indices in athletes from training status, different types of exercise training, sex and ageing, presented from both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The predictability of HRV in over-training, athletic condition and athletic performance is also included. Finally, some recommendations concerning the application of HRV methods in athletes are made.The cardiovascular system is mostly controlled by autonomic regulation through the activity of sympathetic and parasympathetic pathways of the autonomic nervous system. Analysis of HRV permits insight in this control mechanism. It can easily be determined from ECG recordings, resulting in time series (RR-intervals) that are usually analysed in time and frequency domains. As a first approach, it can be assumed that power in different frequency bands corresponds to activity of sympathetic (0.04-0.15 Hz) and parasympathetic (0.15-0.4 Hz) nerves. However, other mechanisms (and feedback loops) are also at work, especially in the low frequency band. During dynamic exercise, it is generally assumed that heart rate increases due to both a parasympathetic withdrawal and an augmented sympathetic activity. However, because some authors disagree with the former statement and the fact that during exercise there is also a technical problem related to the non-stationary signals, a critical look at interpretation of results is needed. It is strongly suggested that, when presenting reports on HRV studies related to exercise physiology in general or concerned with athletes, a detailed description should be provided on analysis methods, as well as concerning population, and training schedule, intensity and duration. Most studies concern relatively small numbers of study participants, diminishing the power of statistics. Therefore, multicentre studies would be preferable. In order to further develop this fascinating research field, we advocate prospective, randomised, controlled, long-term studies using validated measurement methods. Finally, there is a strong need for basic research on the nature of the control and regulating mechanism exerted by the autonomic nervous system on cardiovascular function in athletes, preferably with a multidisciplinary approach between cardiologists, exercise physiologists, pulmonary physiologists, coaches and biomedical engineers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

André E Aubert, Bert Seps, Frank Beckers. 2003. Heart rate variability in athletes.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333120-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The diagnostic workup of patients with neuropathic pain.

Determining the causes of neuropathic pain is more than an epistemological exercise. At its essence, it is a quest to delineate mechanisms of dysfunction through which treatment strategies can be created that are effective in reducing, ameliorating, or eliminating symptomatology. To date, predictors of which patients will develop neuropathic pain or who will respond to specific therapies are lacking, and present therapies have been developed mainly through trial and error. Our current inability to make therapeutically meaningful decisions based on ancillary test data is illustrated by the following: In a study specifically designed to assess the response of patients with painful distal sensory neuropathies to the 5% lidocaine patch, no relationship between treatment response and distal leg skin biopsy, QST, or sensory nerve conduction study results could be established. From a mechanistic perspective, the hypothesis that the lidocaine patch would be most effective in patients with relatively intact epidermal innervation, whose neuropathic pain is presumed attributable to "irritable nociceptors," and least effective in patients with few surviving epidermal nociceptors, presumably with "deafferentation pain," was unproven. The possible explanations are multiple and outside the scope of this review. However, these findings, coupled with the disparity in C-fiber subtype involvement in diabetic small-fiber neuropathy, and the recently reported inability of enzyme replacement therapy in Fabry disease to influence intraepidermal innervation density, while having mixed effects on cold and warm QST thresholds, and beneficial effects on sudomotor findings, when therapeutic benefit was demonstrated, lead one to conclude that the specificity of ancillary testing in neuropathic pain is inadequate at present, and reinforce the aforementioned caveats about inferential conclusions from indirect data. The diagnosis of neuropathic pain mechanisms is in its nascent stages and ancillary testing remains "subordinate," "subsidiary," and "auxiliary" as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. As a consequence of these difficulties, the recent approach by Bennett and his colleagues may have merit. They have hypothesized (and provide data in support) that chronic pain can be more or less neuropathic on a spectrum between "likely," "possible," and "unlikely," based on patient responses on validated neuropathic pain symptom scales, when compared with specialist pain physician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The symptoms most associated with neuropathic pain were dysesthesias, evoked pain, paroxysmal pain, thermal pain, autonomic complaints, and descriptions of the pain as being sharp, hot, or cold, with high sensitivity. Higher scores for these symptoms correlated with greater clinician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain mechanisms. Considering each individual patient's chronic pain as being somewhere on a continuum between "purely nociceptive" and "purely neuropathic" may have diagnostic and therapeutic relevance by enhancing specificity, but this requires clinical confirmation. Thus, symptom assessment remains indispensable in the evaluation of neuropathic pain, ancillary testing notwithstanding

Autonomic Nervous System↗