Parasympathetic Modulation and Running Performance in Distance Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between basal heart rate (BHR) and heart rate recovery (HRR), parasympathetic modulation parameters, with running performance in distance runners. It was hypothesized that greater parasympathetic modulation would be significantly associated with greater running performance. Twelve well-trained endurance runners (23.2 +/- 3.3 years; 175.6 +/- 5.8 cm; 65.2 +/- 6.7 kg) performed the Université de Montréal Track Test (UMTT) until volitional exhaustion (total final time, TUMTT), with the highest completed stage recorded as the maximal aerobic speed (MAS). More than 48 hours afterwards, participants ran at the MAS until volitional exhaustion, with maximal running time (Tlim) recorded. Maximum heart rate was significantly greater for the UMTT compared with Tlim (p = 0.004). Significant correlations were exhibited between MAS and BHR (r = -0.845, p = 0.001); mean drop in heart rate at the first minute of recovery after the UMTT (r = 0.617, p = 0.033) and Tlim (r = 0.787, p = 0.002); and mean drop in heart rate at the second minute of recovery after the UMTT (r = 0.630, p = 0.028). These results support previous reports that endurance training results in greater running performance and greater parasympathetic modulation before and after exercise. We suggest that coaches consider HRR and BHR for the monitoring of training for endurance performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".