ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
An exploratory study of maximal heart rate determination in endurance athletes: laboratory testing vs. field based.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate assessment of cardiovascular parameters, including maximal heart rate (HRmax), resting heart rate (RHR), and heart rate reserve (HRR), is important for guiding training prescriptions in endurance athletes. Conventional age-based HRmax prediction formulas, particularly the widely used "220-age" equation, remain common despite substantial individual variation and documented underestimation in trained populations. Self-reported field data-defined as the highest heart rate recorded during maximal training or racing efforts-provide an ecologically valid alternative for examining HRmax in real-world settings. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 4,375 endurance athletes across multiple disciplines. Self-reported HRmax, RHR, weekly training load, and training history were collected via standardized web-based surveys administered globally from November 2022 to January 2023. Associations were evaluated using Pearson correlations, and the accuracy of age-based HRmax formulas was assessed via Bland-Altman analyses. Results: Age was strongly inversely correlated with HRmax ( Conclusions: This exploratory analysis of self-reported field data demonstrates that age-based HRmax formulas show systematic underestimation and wide individual error in endurance athletes. These findings support the use of individualized, context-specific HRmax assessment, while highlighting the limitations of relying solely on age-based predictions.
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.