O<sub>2</sub>uptake and blood pressure regulation at the onset of exercise: interaction of circadian rhythm and priming exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circadian rhythm has an influence on several physiological functions that contribute to athletic performance. We tested the hypothesis that circadian rhythm would affect blood pressure (BP) responses but not O(2) uptake (Vo(2)) kinetics during the transitions to moderate and heavy cycling exercises. Nine male athletes (peak Vo(2): 60.5 ± 3.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) performed multiple rides of two different cycling protocols involving sequences of 6-min bouts at moderate or heavy intensities interspersed by a 20-W baseline in the morning (7 AM) and evening (5 PM). Breath-by-breath Vo(2) and beat-by-beat BP estimated by finger cuff plethysmography were measured simultaneously throughout the protocols. Circadian rhythm did not affect Vo(2) onset kinetics determined from the phase II time constant (τ(2)) during either moderate or heavy exercise bouts with no prior priming exercise (τ(2) moderate exercise: morning 22.5 ± 4.6 s vs. evening 22.2 ± 4.6 s and τ(2) heavy exercise: morning 26.0 ± 2.7 s vs. evening 26.2 ± 2.6 s, P > 0.05). Priming exercise induced the same robust acceleration in Vo(2) kinetics during subsequent moderate and heavy exercise in the morning and evening. A novel finding was an overshoot in BP (estimated from finger cuff plethysmography) in the first minutes of each moderate and heavy exercise bout. After the initial overshoot, BP declined in association with increased skin blood flow between the third and sixth minute of the exercise bout. Priming exercise showed a greater effect in modulating the BP responses in the evening. These findings suggest that circadian rhythm interacts with priming exercise to lower BP during exercise after an initial overshoot with a greater influence in the evening associated with increased skin blood flow.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".