Monitoring the Heart Rate Variability Responses to Training Loads in Competitive Swimmers Using a Smartphone Application and the Banister Impulse-Response Model

HRV-guided training vs traditional HIIT training in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial

High-intensity interval training is the gold standard for cardiac rehabilitation although current revascularization therapy focuses on the recovery of autonomic nervous system balance through heart rate variability (HRV). The main objective was to analyze the effect of HRV-guided training versus high-intensity interval training on cardiorespiratory fitness, heart rate variability, quality of life, and training volume at high intensity, as well as exercise adherence, safety, and feasibility in ischemic patients. This is an 8-week cluster randomized controlled trial with an HRV-based training group (HRV-G) and a traditional HIIT group (HIIT-G). Maximal oxygen consumption, heart rate, and blood pressure were measured during the Bruce protocol treadmill test. HRV was measured with the HRV4Training application, and quality of life with the MacNew QLMI. The repeated measures ANCOVA was used with the age and the baseline scores as covariables. Forty-six patients (mean age 55 ± 11.03 years) were randomized and assigned either to HRV-G (n = 23) or HIIT-G (n = 23). Both groups improved maximal oxygen consumption and METS (P > .05). However, the resting systolic blood pressure was lower in HRV-G (4.3 ± 1.2 mmHg, P = .05). In HRV-G, the resting diastolic, maximal diastolic, and systolic blood pressure decreased (5.4 ± 5.96 mmHg, P = .007; 11.4 ± 12.46 mmHg, P = .005; and 5 ± 5.98 mmHg, P = .013, respectively) whereas the recovery heart rate increased significantly (-21.5 ± 23.16 beats/min, P = .003). The LnrMSSDcv ([LnrMSSDSD/LnrMSSDMEAN] × 100) was lower in HRV-G (1.23 ± 0.91 mmHg, P = .03) while the training volume at high intensity was higher in HIIT-G (31.4 ± 29.2 min, P = .024). HRV-guided training presents a better cardioprotective effect than HIIT-G at a lower high-intensity training volume.

The Use of Fitness-Fatigue Models for Sport Performance Modelling: Conceptual Issues and Contributions from Machine-Learning

The emergence of the first Fitness-Fatigue impulse responses models (FFMs) have allowed the sport science community to investigate relationships between the effects of training and performance. In the models, athletic performance is described by first order transfer functions which represent Fitness and Fatigue antagonistic responses to training. On this basis, the mathematical structure allows for a precise determination of optimal sequence of training doses that would enhance the greatest athletic performance, at a given time point. Despite several improvement of FFMs and still being widely used nowadays, their efficiency for describing as well as for predicting a sport performance remains mitigated. The main causes may be attributed to a simplification of physiological processes involved by exercise which the model relies on, as well as a univariate consideration of factors responsible for an athletic performance. In this context, machine-learning perspectives appear to be valuable for sport performance modelling purposes. Weaknesses of FFMs may be surpassed by embedding physiological representation of training effects into non-linear and multivariate learning algorithms. Thus, ensemble learning methods may benefit from a combination of individual responses based on physiological knowledge within supervised machine-learning algorithms for a better prediction of athletic performance.In conclusion, the machine-learning approach is not an alternative to FFMs, but rather a way to take advantage of models based on physiological assumptions within powerful machine-learning models.

Training load responses modelling and model generalisation in elite sports

This study aims to provide a transferable methodology in the context of sport performance modelling, with a special focus to the generalisation of models. Data were collected from seven elite Short track speed skaters over a three months training period. In order to account for training load accumulation over sessions, cumulative responses to training were modelled by impulse, serial and bi-exponential responses functions. The variable dose-response (DR) model was compared to elastic net (ENET), principal component regression (PCR) and random forest (RF) models, while using cross-validation within a time-series framework. ENET, PCR and RF models were fitted either individually (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$M_{I}$$\end{document}MI) or on the whole group of athletes (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$M_{G}$$\end{document}MG). Root mean square error criterion was used to assess performances of models. ENET and PCR models provided a significant greater generalisation ability than the DR model (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p = 0.018$$\end{document}p=0.018, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p < 0.001$$\end{document}p<0.001, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p = 0.004$$\end{document}p=0.004 and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p < 0.001$$\end{document}p<0.001 for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ENET_{I}$$\end{document}ENETI, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ENET_{G}$$\end{document}ENETG, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$PCR_{I}$$\end{document}PCRI and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$PCR_{G}$$\end{document}PCRG, respectively). Only \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ENET_{G}$$\end{document}ENETG and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$RF_{G}$$\end{document}RFG were significantly more accurate in prediction than DR (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p < 0.001$$\end{document}p<0.001 and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p < 0.012$$\end{document}p<0.012). In conclusion, ENET achieved greater generalisation and predictive accuracy performances. Thus, building and evaluating models within a generalisation enhancing procedure is a prerequisite for any predictive modelling.