ArticlePloS one2018
Prediction equation to estimate heart rate at individual ventilatory threshold in female and male obese adults.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response: Could a Short Incremental Test Be a Valid Cardiorespiratory Efficiency Assessment Tool in Obese Adults? A Comparison between Two Exercise Testing Protocols (J Obes Metab Syndr 2025;34:282-90).Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Prediction of Relevant Training Control Parameters at Individual Anaerobic Threshold without Blood Lactate Measurement.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Automatic Detection of Aerobic Threshold through Recurrence Quantification Analysis of Heart Rate Time Series.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Heart Rate Modeling and Prediction Using Autoregressive Models and Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Relationship between individual ventilatory threshold and maximal fat oxidation (MFO) over different obesity classes in women.PloS one · 2019Article
- Response to: Comment #2 on "Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects".International journal of endocrinology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrescribing individualized moderate exercise intensity is a useful method to reach positive effects on health status in obese adults. This study aimed to establish a practical reference equation to estimate the heart rate (HR) at individual ventilatory threshold (IVT) (HRIVT).
methodsOne hundred sixty-one obese subjects were clinically evaluated and characterized by anthropometric and body composition. Participants performed the six-minute walking test (6-MWT) and the cardiopulmonary exercise test to assess IVT. Multiple regression analysis for HRIVT, including 6-MWT, anthropometric, and body composition parameters, as independent variables, was performed for both gender separately. A cross-validation study was also performed to determine the accuracy of the prediction equation.
resultsWhereas HRIVT was not significantly different between males (121.5±18.3 bpm) and females (117.6±17.1 bpm), it differently correlated with physical and performance parameters. Therefore, two sex-specific equations were developed including 6-MWTHR and HRrest (R2 = 0.69 and 0.65 and root mean square errors of 8.8 and 10.1 bpm for females and males, respectively).
conclusionIn conclusion, in female and male obese adults, the 6-MWT might be used to predict HR at IVT. These outcomes are useful to prescribe optimal physical activity intensity when gold standard methods (e.g. gas exchange analysis) are unavailable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.