A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

HRV-Based Thresholds in Rowing: Validity and Reliability Assessment. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

The concurrent validity of lactate thresholds (LT1, LT2) and between-day reliability data from the rowing-specific heart rate variability (HRV)-based thresholds (HRVT) were examined. Thus, 21 rowers (19.6 ± 2.8 years; 1.78 ± 0.09 m; 72.8 ± 11.3 kg) performed two rowing ergometer step tests (starting 100-150 W; 40-50 W increment/4 min) one week apart. Thirteen participants completed both sessions and were included in the reliability analysis. Reliability of power at first (HRVT1) and second HRVT (HRVT2) revealed low standard error of measurements (SEM: HRVT1 = 12 W; HRVT2 = 6 W), coefficient of variation (CV: HRVT1 = 11.5%; HRVT2 = 5.9%), and good to excellent intraclass coefficient (ICC: HRVT1 = 0.83; HRVT2 = 0.93). HRVT2 revealed a sufficient level of agreement (LoA = 35 W) and practicable low minimal detectable changes (MDC = 16 W). In contrast, LoA (46 W) and MDC (32 W) were notably higher for HRVT1. Furthermore, concurrent validity data showed good to excellent ICC values (0.90), low SEM (7 W) and sufficient LoA (35 W) between HRVT2 and power at LT2. Despite good ICC values (0.78), the SEM (LT1 = 12 W) and LoA (41 W) data were notably higher during HRVT1 versus power at LT1 comparison. Thus, HRVT might be a promising, valid, and reliable option to estimate LT in rowing, with HRVT2 having particularly favorable properties as a surrogate for LT2.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.70054DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hrv-based thresholds
8
concurrent validity
8
hrvt2 revealed
8
good excellent
8
notably higher
8
higher hrvt1
8
icc values
8
thresholds rowing
4
rowing validity
4
reliability
4

Similar Publications