Forum Archives

The test protocol is not critical.  The goal is to provide a small load/stress and see how your body responds.   It could be done on a stationary bike. Walking on a treadmill.  The main thing is to be consistent in the application.  Like, step up and down at the same rate for the same time and then sit down and measure your HR in a minute.

There is no way to compare other people’s data and yours.  You need to establish a baseline when you are rested by testing a few times in a week.  This will show the HR drop after 1 minute when rested.  When the training load is high, you should be able to see a correlation between 1 min HR drop and fatigue state.  If your normal 1min HR drop is 50bpm when rested, but later you see a drop of 30bpm, and on that day you have a poor workout due to fatigue, you have learned something from the test. The more data you collect, the more reliable it will be.

Heikki Rusko developed what he called the orthostatic recovery test to be used in a similar way.  With a recording HR monitor, you lie quitely for 5 minutes, then immediately stand up.  Your HR data will record the lowest HR, the highest standing, and the HR 1min after standing.

These all measure the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.  These were more common before HRV became so ubiquitous in HR monitor watches. But I honestly think these tests are more reliable.  They just take more work on your part than an HRV test.

Scott