Logan N, Reilly J J, Grant S, Paton J Y
Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Exercise Science and Medicine, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jan;32(1):162-6. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200001000-00024.
Heart rate monitoring is widely used to measure physical activity in children, but it may be dependent on the definition of resting heart rate used and the protocol used to measure or derive resting heart rate (RHR). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of RHR definition on activity levels assessed by PAHR-25 (% time at >25% of RHR), PAHR-50 (% time at >50% of RHR), and activity heart rate (AHR; mean HR minus RHR).
Minute-to-minute heart rates were measured over 3 d in 20 healthy preschool children aged 3-4 yr. Resting heart rate was measured for 5 min after a 10-min rest and was also derived from the following different but commonly used protocols: 1) mean of lowest heart rate plus all heart rates within three beats; 2) mean of lowest 5; 3) lowest 10; 4) lowest 50. This gave five different definitions of RHR. Differences in RHR and in the derived indices of activity among definitions were tested for agreement using a Bland-Altman analysis, and by rank order correlation.
Differences in RHR among all definitions were statistically significant. These resulted in significant differences in apparent physical activity levels: PAHR-25 varied 10-50% depending on the protocol used to define RHR; PAHR-50 varied by 16-65% as a function of the protocol used to define RHR. However, the different definitions of RHR had no significant influence on physical activity level when children were rank ordered.
Choice of method for defining RHR has a profound effect on the apparent level of activity of children. This does not alter the relative assessment of activity by rank order. A consensus definition of RHR is desirable if comparisons of activity levels between samples or populations are to be made and if the adequacy of physical activity levels is to be assessed using heart rate.
心率监测广泛用于测量儿童的身体活动，但它可能取决于所使用的静息心率定义以及用于测量或推导静息心率（RHR）的方案。本研究的目的是确定RHR定义对通过PAHR - 25（心率超过RHR的25%的时间百分比）、PAHR - 50（心率超过RHR的50%的时间百分比）和活动心率（AHR；平均心率减去RHR）评估的活动水平的影响。
对20名3 - 4岁的健康学龄前儿童进行了为期3天的逐分钟心率测量。在休息10分钟后测量5分钟的静息心率，并且还从以下不同但常用的方案中推导得出：1）最低心率加上三个心跳范围内的所有心率的平均值；2）最低5次心率的平均值；3）最低10次心率的平均值；4）最低50次心率的平均值。这给出了RHR的五种不同定义。使用Bland - Altman分析和等级相关检验来测试不同定义之间RHR和活动衍生指标的差异是否一致。
所有定义之间的RHR差异具有统计学意义。这些差异导致明显的身体活动水平存在显著差异：PAHR - 25根据用于定义RHR的方案而变化10 - 50%；PAHR - 50根据用于定义RHR的方案而变化16 - 65%。然而，当按等级对儿童进行排序时，RHR的不同定义对身体活动水平没有显著影响。
定义RHR的方法选择对儿童的明显活动水平有深远影响。这不会改变按等级对活动进行的相对评估。如果要对样本或人群之间的活动水平进行比较，并且如果要使用心率评估身体活动水平的充足性，那么需要对RHR达成共识定义。
