|
INTRA-
AND INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY IN SELECTION OF THE HEART RATE DEFLECTION
POINT DURING INCREMENTAL EXERCISE: COMPARISON TO A COMPUTER-GENERATED
DEFLECTION POINT
Daniel G. Carey ,
Robert L. Raymond
and Bridget A. Duoos
|
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
| Received |
|
30 May 2002 |
| Accepted |
|
09
September 2002 |
| Published |
|
01December
2002 |
© Journal of Sports Science
and Medicine (2002) 1, 115 - 121
Search
Google Scholar for Citing Articles
|
|
This study was designed to 1) determine the relative frequency
of occurrence of a heart rate deflection point (HRDP), when compared to
a linear relationship, during progressive exercise, 2) measure the reproducibility
of a visual assessment of a heart rate deflection point (HRDP), both within
and between observers 3) compare visual and computer-assessed deflection
points. Subjects consisted of 73 competitive male cyclists with mean age
of 31.4 ± 6.3 years, mean height 178.3 ± 4.8 cm. and weight 74.0 ± 4.4
kg. Tests were conducted on an electrically-braked cycle ergometer beginning
at 25 watts and progressing 25 watts per minute to fatigue. Heart Rates
were recorded the last 10 seconds of each stage and at fatigue. Scatter
plots of heart rate versus watts were computer-generated and given to
3 observers on two different occasions. A computer program was developed
to assess if data points were best represented by a single line or two
lines. The HRDP represented the intersection of the two lines. Results
of this study showed that 1) computer-assessed HRDP showed that 44 of
73 subjects (60.3%) had scatter plots best represented by a straight line
with no HRDP 2)in those subjects having HRDP, all 3 observers showed significant
differences(p = 0.048, p = 0.007, p = 0.001) in reproducibility of their
HRDP selection. Differences in HRDP selection were significant for two
of the three comparisons between observers (p = 0.002, p = 0.305, p =
0.0003) Computer-generated HRDP was significantly different than visual
HRDP for 2 of 3 observers (p = 0.0016, p = 0.513, p = 0.0001). It is concluded
that 1) HRDP occurs in a minority of subjects 2) significant differences
exist, both within and between observers, in selection of HRDP and 3)
differences in agreement between visual and computer-generated HRDP would
indicate that, when HRDP exists, it should be computer-assessed.
KEY WORDS: Conconi, anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold.
|