HEART RATE MEASURES TO MONITOR TRAINING STATUS IN ATHLETES

TOOLS OR TOYS?

By Yann LE MEUR

3rd Football Science Summit

London, 2015

@YLMSportScience

TRAINING RECOVERY

COACH

SALIVA PARAMETERS

BLOOD PARAMETERS

PSYCHOMETRIC

PARAMETERS

HEART RATE

Non-invasive

Time-efficient

Can be applied routinely

And simultaneously in a

large number of athletes

Still not accepted as a

gold standard

Lack of consistency

in the literature

Buchheit Frontiers 2014

Not manipulable

Buchheit Frontiers 2014

► Different sensivity to fitness, overload and

performance,

► Different methodology of data collection

RESTING MEASURE: rHR

Plews et al. IJSPP 2014

► Small to moderate

correlation using 1 value per

week

► Large to very large when

using daily HR measures

↗ MAS & 10km performance

correlated with ↘ resting HR

A minimum of 1 value per

week may help to monitor

the training status

AND WHAT ABOUT HRV?

► More complex and more time-

demanding + worse signal-to-noise

ratio than HR measures

► Same sensivity to training status

than HR

Use a minimum of 3

(randomly selected) valid

data points per week to

reduce the noise and to

monitor training adaptation !

Too heavy in most cases Plews et al. IJSPP 2014

EXERCISE MEASURE: HRex (submax)

Buchheit et al. EJAP 2011

A decrease in HRex is generally

associated with improvement in

fitness level

5min Submax (e.g. WU)

Collecting one value per

week may help to monitor

the training status

► Suggested to be a relevant training monitoring

tool to track positive changes in high-intensity

exercise performance

But in team sports especially, changes in

HRR did not always correlate with

performance changes

… or displayed correlations of lower

magnitude than that observed with HRex

Daanen et al. IJSPP 2012

Buchheit et al. 2012 & 2013

AND WHAT ABOUT HRR?

Parameters Usefullness

Good

response to

training

Resting HR ++ ↘

HRex ++ ↘

HRR (+) ↗

SO…

Parameters Usefullness

Good

response to

training

Overreaching

(intensified

training)

Resting HR ++ ↘

↘ Uusitalo et al. 1998

Hedelin 2000 Le Meur 2013 & 14

HRex ++ ↘

↘ Lehmann 1991 Hedelin 2000 Bosquet 2001 Coutts 2007 Dupuy 2012

Le Meur 2013 & 14

HRR (+) ↗

↗ Dupuy 2012

Thompson 2015 Le Meur under

review

…BUT!

RESTING HR & OVERREACHING

Le Meur et al. MSSE 2013

*** *** * *** *** *

40

45

50

55

1 2 3 4

Resti

ng

HR

(b

pm

)

Weeks

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

1 2 3 4

Ru

nn

ing

pe

rfo

rman

ce (

m)

Weeks

CTL

OR

-5 0 5

BEST MARKERS TO PREDICT OVERREACHING?

Le Meur et al. JAP 2013

Control group Overreached group

1.↘HRex at all exercise intensities

2. ↘Blood lactate concentration at all exercise

intensities

3. …

Lehmann et al. BJSM 1992

WHERE DOES THE PROBLEM COME FROM?

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

Rest i1 i2 i3 Max

Pre

Post

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

Rest i1 i2 i3 Max

Pre

Post

Pla

sm

a a

dre

nalin

co

ncen

trati

on

(µ

mo

l/L

)

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

Rest i1 i2 i3 Max

Pre

Post

Control

Acute fatigue

Overreaching

+ vagal hyperactivity?

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

CONSEQUENCE ON HRR

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pre Post

Ch

an

ge in

HR

R (

bp

m)

Overreaching

Acute fatigue

Control

Le Meur & Buchheit under review

Dupuy et al. APNM 2013

Hammes et al. ECSS 2014

Thompson et al. JSMS 2015

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Heart

rate

(b

pm

)

Time

►Illustration with 2 athletes

►Same endurance-oriented overload period (+40% of habitual training load)

►Maximal incremental running test (+1km/h each 3 min, r = 1min)

ATHLETE B

Functional overreaching

↘ Maximal aerobic speed

↘ HRex

↘ HRmax

↗↗ RPE

↗↗Perceived fatigue

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Heart

rate

(b

pm

)

Pre

Post

Time

↗ Maximal aerobic speed

↘ HRex

→ HRmax

ATHLETE A

Good adaptation to training

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Resting HR and exercise HR are sensitive to changes in the training

status. There likely the most usefull monitoring tools but they should

always be interpretated with other psychometric and performance

markers to correctly interpret the data

Parameters Usefullness

Good response

to training

Overreaching

(intensified

training)

Resting HR ++ ↘ ↘

Resting HRV Difficult to implement with a squad

HRex ++ ↘ ↘

HRR (+) ↗ ↗

HRmax ++ = ↘

RPE +++ ↘ ↗

Perceived

fatigue +++ normal

High to very

high

Performance +++ ↗ ↘

+ muscle soreness & NM performance

WHY SHOULD YOU TRACK HRex IF

PERFORMANCE & PERCEPTIVE MARKERS

ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETERS?

❶ 5min per week!

❸ Usefull to secure your ‘diagnosis’

❹ Usefull to interfer about the origin(s)

of overreaching (training load and/or

psychosocial stress?)

❷ HRex is not manipulable by the

players

@YLMSportScience

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

ATTENTION

yann.lemeur@insep.fr

Special thanks to Martin Buchheit