Abstract：
We assessed the accuracy and inter-sessional reliability of traditional (manual) compared to automatic (AutoHR) heart rate (HR) clamping methods during submaximal intensity continuous cycling. On separate occasions, thirteen males cycled at an HR corresponding to 80% of the ventilatory threshold for 18 min. Cycling power output was adjusted using either manual or AutoHR methods, encompassing three trials per method. For the manual method, cycling power output was adjusted every 30 s by 0, 5 or 10 W at the experimenter\'s discretion. Conversely, AutoHR automatically adjusted power output based on the difference between target and actual HR. Participants\' HR was measured at 1 Hz. Root-mean square error (RMSE) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated from the difference between measured and target HR to represent accuracy and reliability of each method. The RMSE for the manual method (3.2 ± 2.6 bpm) was significantly higher compared to AutoHR (2.8 ± 2.3 bpm) (p < 0.01, r = 0.13); inter-day ICC were 0.92 and 0.89 for manual adjustment and AutoHR, respectively. Automatic methods to clamp HR are more accurate than manual approaches during submaximal intensity continuous cycling and can be easily implemented for uniform HR control in individual and group training sessions at minimal cost.
摘要：
在亚最大强度连续循环过程中，我们评估了传统（手动）与自动（AutoHR）心率（HR）钳制方法相比的准确性和闭会期间可靠性。在不同的场合，13名男性以对应于通气阈值的80％的HR循环18分钟。使用手动或AutoHR方法调整循环功率输出，每种方法包括三次试验。对于手动方法，根据实验者的判断，每30s将循环功率输出调整0、5或10W。相反，AutoHR根据目标和实际HR之间的差异自动调整功率输出。参与者的HR在1Hz测量。根据测量值和目标HR之间的差异计算均方根误差（RMSE）和组内相关系数（ICC），以表示每种方法的准确性和可靠性。手动方法的RMSE（3.2±2.6bpm）明显高于AutoHR（2.8±2.3bpm）（p<0.01，r=0.13）；手动调整和AutoHR的日间ICC分别为0.92和0.89，分别。在次最大强度连续循环过程中，自动钳制HR的方法比手动方法更准确，并且可以轻松地在个人和团体训练中实现统一的HR控制，成本最低。
