Abstract
Most age-predicted maximal heart rate (MHR) equations have a wide margin of error when compared to actual MHR determined by a maximal exercise test. There is limited data exploring the possible utility of resting heart rate (RHR) with predicting MHR.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this investigation was to use a stepwise regression procedure to determine if RHR could add significant value to age in predicting MHR, and to compare the accuracy of the developed equation with two-other established equations for predicting MHR in a cross-validation cohort.
METHODS: One-hundred and forty apparently healthy adult (age = 34.6 ± 14.9 years) men (n= 100) and women (n = 40) volunteered to participate in this study. Each subject rested in a supine position for a 5-minute period and RHR was recorded as the lowest HR obtained during that time. Each subject then performed a maximal graded exercise test on a treadmill. Heart rate
was measured continuously throughout the exercise test via electrocardiography. The heart rate value that corresponded to peak oxygen consumption was recorded as actual MHR (aMHR). The independent variables analyzed via stepwise multiple regression included RHR and age, with MHR serving as the dependent variable. In addition, MHR was also predicted in an additional cohort of 40 adult (age = 40.1 ± 12.9 years) men (n = 20) and women (n = 20) by using the developed equation from the current study (pMHR1) and two commonly used age-predicted MHR equations: 1) 220-age (Fox et al., 1971 [pMHR2]) and 2) 208 - [0.7 x age] (Tanaka et al., 2001 [pMHR3]). The predicted MHR equations were compared to aMHR in the cross-validation cohort.
RESULTS: The stepwise regression procedure showed that age and RHR independently predicted MHR with the following equation: MHR = 182.338 - (age x 0.640) + (RHR x 0.328). For the cross-validation group, aMHR was 178.4 ± 12.2 beats.min-1. Cross-validation revealed the following for the prediction equations: pMHR1 = 177.8 ± 9.7 beats.min-1, r = 0.78, R2 = 0.61, p < 0.01, SEE = 7.78 beats.min-1; pMHR2 = 179.9 ± 12.9 beats.min-1, r = 0.68, R2 = 0.46, p < 0.01, SEE = 9.11 beats.min-1; pMHR3 = 179.9 ± 9.0 beats.min-1, r = 0.68, R2 = 0.46, p < 0.01, SEE = 9.11 beats.min-1.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that RHR may be a variable that should be accounted for when predicting MHR with age.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this investigation was to use a stepwise regression procedure to determine if RHR could add significant value to age in predicting MHR, and to compare the accuracy of the developed equation with two-other established equations for predicting MHR in a cross-validation cohort.
METHODS: One-hundred and forty apparently healthy adult (age = 34.6 ± 14.9 years) men (n= 100) and women (n = 40) volunteered to participate in this study. Each subject rested in a supine position for a 5-minute period and RHR was recorded as the lowest HR obtained during that time. Each subject then performed a maximal graded exercise test on a treadmill. Heart rate
was measured continuously throughout the exercise test via electrocardiography. The heart rate value that corresponded to peak oxygen consumption was recorded as actual MHR (aMHR). The independent variables analyzed via stepwise multiple regression included RHR and age, with MHR serving as the dependent variable. In addition, MHR was also predicted in an additional cohort of 40 adult (age = 40.1 ± 12.9 years) men (n = 20) and women (n = 20) by using the developed equation from the current study (pMHR1) and two commonly used age-predicted MHR equations: 1) 220-age (Fox et al., 1971 [pMHR2]) and 2) 208 - [0.7 x age] (Tanaka et al., 2001 [pMHR3]). The predicted MHR equations were compared to aMHR in the cross-validation cohort.
RESULTS: The stepwise regression procedure showed that age and RHR independently predicted MHR with the following equation: MHR = 182.338 - (age x 0.640) + (RHR x 0.328). For the cross-validation group, aMHR was 178.4 ± 12.2 beats.min-1. Cross-validation revealed the following for the prediction equations: pMHR1 = 177.8 ± 9.7 beats.min-1, r = 0.78, R2 = 0.61, p < 0.01, SEE = 7.78 beats.min-1; pMHR2 = 179.9 ± 12.9 beats.min-1, r = 0.68, R2 = 0.46, p < 0.01, SEE = 9.11 beats.min-1; pMHR3 = 179.9 ± 9.0 beats.min-1, r = 0.68, R2 = 0.46, p < 0.01, SEE = 9.11 beats.min-1.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that RHR may be a variable that should be accounted for when predicting MHR with age.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 664 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 5S |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2013 |