Yoga and Psychophysiological Determinants of Cardiovascular Health: Comparing Yoga Practitioners, Runners, and Sedentary Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence of cardiovascular benefits of yoga is promising, but lacks demonstrations of specificity compared to other interventions. PURPOSE: The present cross-sectional study examined cardiovascular health markers in long-term practitioners of yoga (yogis), runners, and sedentary individuals. METHODS: We compared physiological, psychological, and lifestyle variables associated with cardiovascular health across groups. RESULTS: Yogis (n = 47) and runners (n = 46) showed favorable profiles compared to sedentary individuals (n = 52) on heart rate, heart rate variability, depression, perceived stress, and cigarette smoking. Runners and male yogis showed superior aerobic fitness compared to the sedentary group. Runners reported greater social support compared to other groups. Yogis demonstrated a lower respiration rate compared to sedentary individuals and were more likely to refrain from eating meat compared to other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Yogis and runners demonstrated several cardiovascular health advantages over sedentary individuals. Our findings raise the possibility that yoga may improve aerobic fitness in men but not women.
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) | 0.004 | 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".