Heart rate measures to monitor training status in soccer [YLM 2015]

1. HEART RATE MEASURES TO MONITOR
TRAINING STATUS IN ATHLETES
TOOLS OR TOYS?
By Yann LE MEUR
@YLMSportScience

2. TRAINING RECOVERY
COACH

3. SALIVA PARAMETERS
BLOOD PARAMETERS
PSYCHOMETRIC
PARAMETERS
HEART RATE

4. Non-invasive
Time-efficient
Can be applied routinely
And simultaneously in a
large number of athletes
Still not accepted as a
gold standard
Lack of consistency
in the literature
Buchheit Frontiers 2014
Not manipulable

5. Buchheit Frontiers 2014
► Different sensivity to fitness, overload and
performance,
► Different methodology of data collection

6. RESTING MEASURE: rHR
Plews et al. IJSPP 2014
► Small to moderate
correlation using 1 value per
week
► Large to very large when
using daily HR measures
↗ MAS & 10km performance
correlated with ↘ resting HR
A minimum of 1 value per
week may help to monitor
the training status

7. AND WHAT ABOUT HRV?
► More complex and more time-
demanding + worse signal-to-noise
ratio than HR measures
► Same sensivity to training status
than HR
Use a minimum of 3
(randomly selected) valid
data points per week to
reduce the noise and to
monitor training adaptation !
Too heavy in most cases Plews et al. IJSPP 2014

8. EXERCISE MEASURE: HRex (submax)
Buchheit et al. EJAP 2011
A decrease in HRex is generally
associated with improvement in
fitness level
5min
Submax
(e.g. WU)
Collecting one value per
week may help to monitor
the training status

9. ► Suggested to be a relevant training monitoring
tool to track positive changes in high-intensity
exercise performance
But in team sports especially, changes in
HRR did not always correlate with
performance changes
… or displayed correlations of lower
magnitude than that observed with HRex
Daanen et al. IJSPP 2012
Buchheit et al. 2012 & 2013
AND WHAT ABOUT HRR?

10. Parameters Usefullness
Good
response to
training
Resting HR ++ ↘
HRex ++ ↘
HRR (+) ↗
SO…

11. Parameters Usefullness
Good
response to
training
Overreaching
(intensified
training)
Resting HR ++ ↘
↘
Uusitalo et al. 1998
Hedelin 2000
Le Meur 2013 & 14
HRex ++ ↘
↘
Lehmann 1991
Hedelin 2000
Bosquet 2001
Coutts 2007
Dupuy 2012
Le Meur 2013 & 14
HRR (+) ↗
↗
Dupuy 2012
Thompson 2015
Under review
…BUT!

12. RESTING HR & OVERREACHING
Le Meur et al. MSSE 2013
**************
40
45
50
55
1 2 3 4
RestingHR(bpm)
Weeks
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
1 2 3 4
Runningperformance(m)
Weeks
CTL
OR

13. -5 0 5
BEST MARKERS TO PREDICT OVERREACHING?
Le Meur, Hausswirth et al. JAP 2013
Control groupOverreached group
1. ↘HRex at all exercise intensities
2. ↘Blood lactate concentration at all exercise
intensities
3. …

14. Lehmann et al. BJSM 1992
WHERE DOES THE PROBLEM COME FROM?
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
Rest i1 i2 i3 Max
Pre
Post
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
Rest i1 i2 i3 Max
Pre
Post
Plasmaadrenalinconcentration(µmol/L)
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
Rest i1 i2 i3 Max
Pre
Post
Control
Acute fatigue
Overreaching
+ vagal hyperactivity?
Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

15. CONSEQUENCE ON HRR
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre Post
ChangeinHRR(bpm)
Overreaching
Acute fatigue
Control
under review
Dupuy et al. APNM 2013
Hammes et al. ECSS 2014
Thompson et al. JSMS 2015

16. 60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Heartrate(bpm)
Time
►Illustration with 2 athletes
►Same endurance-oriented overload period (+40% of habitual training load)
►Maximal incremental running test (+1km/h each 3 min, r = 1min)
ATHLETE B
Functional overreaching
↘ Maximal aerobic speed
↘ HRex
↘ HRmax
↗↗ RPE
↗↗Perceived fatigue
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Heartrate(bpm)
Pre
Post
Time
↗ Maximal aerobic speed
↘ HRex
→ HRmax
ATHLETE A
Good adaptation to training

17. TAKE HOME MESSAGE
Resting HR and exercise HR are sensitive to changes in the training
status. There likely the most usefull monitoring tools but they should
always be interpretated with other psychometric and performance
markers to correctly interpret the data
Parameters Usefullness
Good response
to training
Overreaching
(intensified
training)
Resting HR ++ ↘ ↘
Resting HRV Difficult to implement with a squad
HRex ++ ↘ ↘
HRR (+) ↗ ↗
HRmax ++ = ↘
RPE +++ ↘ ↗
Perceived
fatigue
+++ normal
High to very
high
Performance +++ ↗ ↘
+ muscle soreness & NM performance

18. WHY SHOULD YOU TRACK HRex IF
PERFORMANCE & PERCEPTIVE MARKERS
ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETERS?
❶ 5min per week!
❸ Usefull to secure your ‘diagnosis’
❹ Usefull to interfer about the origin(s)
of overreaching (training load and/or
psychosocial stress?)
❷ HRex is not manipulable by the
players

19. @YLMSportScience
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
yann.lemeur@insep.fr