The purpose of the present work was to compare daily variations of heart rate variability (HRV) parameters between controlled breathing (CB) and spontaneous breathing (SB) sessions during a longitudinal follow-up of athletes. HRV measurements were performed daily on 10 healthy male runners for 21 consecutive days. The signals were recorded during two successive randomised 5-minutes sessions. One session was performed in CB and the other in SB. The results showed significant differences between the two respiration methods in the temporal, nonlinear and frequency domains. However, significant correlations were observed between CB and SB (higher than 0.70 for RMSSD and SD1), demonstrating that during a longitudinal follow-up, these markers provide the same HRV variations regardless of breathing pattern. By contrast, independent day-to-day variations were observed with HF and LF/HF frequency markers, indicating no significant relationship between SB and CB data over time. Therefore, we consider that SB and CB may be used for HRV longitudinal follow-ups only for temporal and nonlinear markers. Indeed, the same daily increases and decreases were observed whatever the breathing method employed. Conversely, frequency markers did not provide the same variations between SB and CB and we propose that these indicators are not reliable enough to be used for day-to-day HRV monitoring.

译文

:本研究的目的是在运动员的纵向随访过程中比较控制呼吸(CB)和自发呼吸(SB)期间心率变异性(HRV)参数的每日变化。每天对10名健康的男性跑步者进行连续21天的HRV测量。在两个连续的随机5分钟会话中记录信号。一次会议在CB中进行,另一次在SB中进行。结果显示两种呼吸方法在时域,非线性和频域上存在显着差异。但是,在CB和SB之间观察到显着相关性(RMSSD和SD1高于0.70),表明在纵向随访期间,这些标志物提供了相同的HRV变化,而与呼吸方式无关。相比之下,使用HF和LF / HF频率标记观察到了独立的每日变化,表明SB和CB数据之间没有随时间的显着关系。因此,我们认为SB和CB仅可用于时间和非线性标记物用于HRV纵向随访。实际上,无论采用哪种呼吸方法,每天都观察到相同的每日增加和减少。相反,频率标记在SB和CB之间没有提供相同的变化,我们建议这些指标不够可靠,无法用于日常HRV监测。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录