Effect of recovery mode on postexercise vagal reactivation in elite synchronized swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of whole-body cryostimulation (WBC), contrast-water therapy (CWT), active recovery (ACT), and passive condition (PAS) protocols on the parasympathetic reactivation and metabolic parameters of recovery in elite synchronized swimmers who performed 2 simulated competition ballets (B1 and B2) separated by 70 min. After determining maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O(2max400)) and blood lactate concentrations ([La(-)](b400)) during a 400-m swim trial, 11 swimmers performed 1 protocol per week in randomized order. Heart rate variability (HRV) was measured at rest (PreB1), 5 min after B1 (PostB1), before B2 (PreB2), and 5 min after B2 (PostB2). V̇O(2peak) was measured at PostB1 and PostB2, and [La(-)](b) was measured at PostB1, PreB2, and PostB2. PostB1 V̇O(2peak) and V̇O(2max400) were similar, but PostB1 [La(-)](b) was higher than [La(-)](b400) (p = 0.004). Each ballet caused significant decreases in HRV indices. At PreB2, all HRV indices had returned to PreB1 levels in the CWT, PAS, and ACT protocols, whereas the WBC protocol yielded a 2- to 4-fold increase in vagal-related HRV indices, compared with PreB1. WBC and ACT both increased [La(-)](b) recovery, compared with PAS (p = 0.06 and p = 0.04, respectively), and yielded an increased V̇O(2peak) from B1 to B2; however, it decreased after PAS (+5.4%, +3.4%, and -3.6%; p < 0.01). This study describes the physiological response to repeated maximal work bouts that are highly specific to elite synchronized swimming. In the context of short-term recovery, WBC yields a strong parasympathetic reactivation, and shows similar effectiveness to ACT on the metabolic parameters of recovery and subsequent exercise capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".