↓ Skip to main content

A comparison between heart rate and heart rate variability as indicators of cardiac health and fitness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison between heart rate and heart rate variability as indicators of cardiac health and fitness
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00337
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catharina C. Grant, Carien Murray, Dina C. Janse van Rensburg, Lizelle Fletcher

Abstract

Quantification of cardiac autonomic activity and control via heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) is known to provide prognostic information in clinical populations. Issues with regard to standardization and interpretation of HRV data make the use of the more easily accessible HR on its own as an indicator of autonomic cardiac control very appealing. The aim of this study was to investigate the strength of associations between an important cardio vascular health metric such as VO2max and the following: HR, HRV indicators, and HR normalized HRV indicators. A cross sectional descriptive study was done including 145 healthy volunteers aged between 18 and 22 years. HRV was quantified by time domain, frequency domain and Poincaré plot analysis. Indirect VO2max was determined using the Multistage Coopers test. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to quantify the strength of the associations. Both simple linear and multiple stepwise regressions were performed to be able to discriminate between the role of the individual indicators as well as their combined association with VO2max. Only HR, RR interval, and pNN50 showed significant (p < 0.01, p < 0.01, and p = 0.03) correlations with VO2max. Stepwise multiple regression indicated that, when combining all HRV indicators the most important predictor of cardio vascular fitness as represented by VO2max, is HR. HR explains 17% of the variation, while the inclusion of HF (high frequency HRV indicator) added only an additional 3.1% to the coefficient of determination. Results also showed when testing the normalized indicators, HR explained of the largest percentage of the changes in VO2max (16.5%). Thus, HR on its own is the most important predictor of changes in an important cardiac health metric such as VO2max. These results may indicate that during investigation of exercise ability (VO2max) phenomena, quantification of HRV may not add significant value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 112 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 29 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Engineering 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 26 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,902,082
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,878
of 13,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,428
of 280,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.