Postexercise hypotension after maximal short-term incremental exercise depends on exercise modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated postexercise hypotension (PEH) after maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) performed using different exercise modalities. Twenty healthy men (aged 23 ± 3 years) performed 3 maximal CPETs (cycling, walking, and running), separated by 72 h in a randomized, counter-balanced order. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate, cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), autonomic function (spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and heart rate variability (HRV)), and energy expenditure (EE) were assessed during a 60-min nonexercise control session and for 60 min immediately after each CPET. Total exercise volume (EE during CPET plus 60 min recovery) was significantly higher in running versus cycling and walking CPETs (P ≤ 0.001). Compared with control, only SBP after running CPET was significantly reduced (Δ = -6 ± 8 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Heart rate and cardiac output were significantly increased (P < 0.001) and SVR significantly decreased (P < 0.001) postexercise. BRS and HRV decreased after all CPETs (P < 0.001), whereas sympatho-vagal balance (low- and high-frequency (LF:HF) ratio) increased significantly after all exercise conditions, especially after running CPET (P < 0.001). Changes in SVR, BRS, sympathetic activity (low-frequency component of HRV), and LF:HF ratio were negatively correlated to variations in SBP (range -0.69 to -0.91; P < 0.001) and DBP (range -0.58 to -0.93; P ≤ 0.002). These findings suggest that exercise mode or the total exercise volume are major determinants of PEH magnitude in healthy men. Because of the running CPET, the PEH was primarily related to a decrease in SVR and to an increase in sympatho-vagal balance, which might be a reflex response to peripheral vasodilatation after exercise.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".