The effects of baseline heart rate recovery normality and exercise training protocol on heart rate recovery in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear which exercise training protocol yields superior heart rate recovery (HRR) improvement in heart failure (HF) patients. Whether baseline HRR normality plays a role in the improvement is unknown. We hypothesized that an exercise training protocol and baseline HRR normality would be factors in altering HRR in HF patients. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled and 3 group parallel study, 41 stable HF patients were randomly assigned to 3-times-weekly training sessions for 12 weeks, consisting of i) 30 minutes of interval training (IT) (n=17, 63.7±8.8 years old) versus ii) 30 minutes of continuous training (CT) (n=13, 59.6±6.8 years old) versus iii) no training (CON) (n=11, 60.6±9.9 years old). Each patient had cardiopulmonary exercise testing before and after the training program. Maximum heart rates attained during the test and heart rates at 1 and 2 min (HRR1 and HRR2) during the recovery phase were recorded. Paired samples t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparisons before and after training. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis variance analysis was used for comparisons among groups. RESULTS: HRR1 was unchanged after training. HRR2 improved in the IT group after training, and post-training HRR2 values were significantly faster in the IT group than in controls. Both HRR1 and HRR2 was significantly faster, irrespective of exercise protocol in patients with abnormal baseline values after training. CONCLUSION: HRR1 did not improve after training. HRR2 improved only in the IT group. Both HRRs in patients with abnormal baseline values improved after both exercise protocols. IT might be superior to CT in improving HRR2. Baseline HRR might play a role in its response to exercise

Comparison of chosen physical fitness characteristics of Turkish professional basketball players by division and playing position.

The purpose of the present study was to compare chosen physical fitness characteristics of Turkish professional basketball players in different divisions (first and second division) and playing positions. Forty-five professional male basketball players (14 guards, 15 forwards, 16 centers) participated in this study voluntarily. For each player, anthropometric measurements were performed, as well as a multi-stage 20 m shuttle run, isokinetic leg strength, squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 10-30 meter single-sprint and T-drill agility tests. The differences in terms of division were evaluated by independent t-test and the differences by playing position were evaluated by one-way ANOVA with Post Hoc Tukey test. First division players' CMJ measurements were significantly higher than those of second division players' (p≤0.05), whereas second division players' 10 m sprint times were significantly better than those of first division players' (p≤0.05). In addition, forwards and centers were significantly taller than guards. Centers were significantly heavier and their T-drill test performances were inferior to those of forwards and guards (p≤0.05). Moreover, guards had a significantly higher maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) than centers. Guards and forwards showed significantly better performance in the 10 and 30 m sprint tests than centers (p≤0.05). Forwards and centers had significantly better left leg flexor strength at 180°.s(-1)(p≤0.05). In conclusion, the findings of the present study indicated that physical performance of professional basketball players differed among guards, forwards and centers, whereas there were not significant differences between first and second division players. According to the present study, court positions have different demands and physical attributes which are specific to each playing position in professional basketball players. Therefore, these results suggest that coaches should tailor fitness programs according to specific positions on the court