Heart rate recovery and heart rate variability are unchanged in patients with coronary artery disease following 12 weeks of high-intensity interval and moderate-intensity endurance exercise training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreased heart rate variability and attenuated heart rate recovery following exercise are associated with an increased risk of mortality in cardiac patients. This study investigated the effects of 12 weeks of moderate-intensity endurance exercise (END) and a novel low-volume high-intensity interval exercise protocol (HIT) on measures of heart rate recovery and heart rate variability in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Fourteen males with CAD participated in 12 weeks of END or HIT training, each consisting of 2 supervised exercise sessions per week. END consisted of 30-50 min of continuous cycling at 60% peak power output (PPO). HIT involved ten 1-min intervals at 88% PPO separated by 1-min intervals at 10% PPO. Heart rate recovery at 1 min and 2 min was measured before and after training (pre- and post-training, respectively) using a submaximal exercise bout. Resting time and spectral and nonlinear domain measures of heart rate variability were calculated. Following 12 weeks of END and HIT, there was no change in heart rate recovery at 1 min (END, 40 ± 12 beats·min(-1) vs. 37 ± 19 beats·min(-1); HIT, 31 ± 8 beats·min(-1) vs. 35 ± 8 beats·min(-1); p ≥ 0.05 for pre- vs. post-training) or 2 min (END, 44 ± 18 beats·min(-1) vs. 43 ± 19 beats·min(-1); HIT, 42 ± 10 beats·min(-1) vs. 50 ± 6 beats·min(-1); p ≥ 0.05 for pre- vs. post-training). All heart rate variability indices were unchanged following END and HIT training. In conclusion, neither END nor HIT exercise programs elicited training-induced improvements in cardiac autonomic function in patients with CAD. The absence of improvements with training may be attributed to the optimal medical management and normative pretraining state of our sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".