a Centre de Recherche et d'Innovation sur le Sport , Université Lyon 1, EA 647 , Villeurbanne , 69622 , France.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14 Suppl 1:S282-8. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.691116. Epub 2012 May 31.
The purpose of this study was to measure the influence of breathing frequency (BF) on heart rate variability (HRV) and specifically on the Low Frequency/High Frequency (LF/HF) ratio in athletes. Fifteen male athletes were subjected to HRV measurements under six randomised breathing conditions: spontaneous breathing frequency (SBF) and five others at controlled breathing frequencies (CBF) (0.20; 0.175; 0.15; 0.125 and 0.10 Hz). The subjects were divided in two groups: the first group included athletes with SBF <0.15 Hz (infSBF) and the second athletes with SBF higher than 0.15 Hz (supSBF). Fatigue and training load were evaluated using a validated questionnaire. There was no difference between the two groups for the fatigue questionnaire and training load. However, the LF/HF ratio during SBF was higher in infSBF than in supSBF (6.82 ± 4.55 vs. 0.72 ± 0.52; p<0.001). The SBF and LF/HF ratio were significantly correlated (R=-0.69; p=0.004). For the five CBF, no differences were found between groups; however, LF/HF ratios were very significantly different between sessions at 0.20; 0.175; 0.15 Hz and 0.125; 0.10 Hz. In this study, BF was the main modulator of the LF/HF ratio in both controlled breathing and spontaneous breathing. Although, none of the subjects of the infSBF group were overtrained, during SBF they all presented LF/HF ratios higher than four commonly interpreted as an overtraining syndrome. During each CBF, all athletes presented spectral energy mainly concentrated around their BF. Consequently, spectral energy was located either in LF or in HF band. These results demonstrate that the LF/HF ratio is unreliable for studying athletes presenting SBF close to 0.15 Hz leading to misclassification in fatigue.
这项研究的目的是测量呼吸频率(BF)对心率变异性(HRV)的影响,特别是对运动员的低频/高频(LF/HF)比值的影响。15 名男性运动员在 6 种随机呼吸条件下接受 HRV 测量:自主呼吸频率(SBF)和 5 种其他控制呼吸频率(CBF)(0.20;0.175;0.15;0.125 和 0.10 Hz)。受试者分为两组:第一组包括 SBF<0.15 Hz 的运动员(infSBF)和 SBF 高于 0.15 Hz 的运动员(supSBF)。使用经过验证的问卷评估疲劳和训练负荷。两组之间在疲劳问卷和训练负荷方面没有差异。然而,infSBF 组的 SBF 时 LF/HF 比值高于 supSBF(6.82±4.55 对 0.72±0.52;p<0.001)。SBF 和 LF/HF 比值呈显著相关(R=-0.69;p=0.004)。对于五个 CBF,两组之间没有差异;然而,在 0.20;0.175;0.15 Hz 和 0.125;0.10 Hz 时,LF/HF 比值在各次之间差异非常显著。在这项研究中,BF 是控制呼吸和自主呼吸时 LF/HF 比值的主要调节因子。尽管 infSBF 组的所有受试者都没有过度训练,但在 SBF 时,他们的 LF/HF 比值都高于通常解释为过度训练综合征的 4 个比值。在每个 CBF 时,所有运动员的频谱能量主要集中在他们的 BF 周围。因此,频谱能量位于 LF 或 HF 频段。这些结果表明,LF/HF 比值对于研究接近 0.15 Hz 的 SBF 的运动员不可靠,导致疲劳的错误分类。