Heart rate response and parasympathetic modulation during recovery from exercise in boys and men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of postexercise parasympathetic modulation, measured by heart rate variability (HRV), on heart rate recovery (HRR) in boys (n = 13, 10.1 ± 0.8 years) and men (n = 13, 23.9 ± 1.5 years) following maximal and submaximal exercise. Subjects completed 10 min of supine rest, followed by graded exercise on a cycle ergometer to maximal effort. On a separate day, subjects exercised at an intensity equivalent to ventilatory threshold. Immediately following both exercise bouts, 1-min HRR was assessed in the supine position. HRV was analyzed under controlled breathing during the final 5 min of rest and recovery in the time and frequency domains and transformed to natural log (ln) values. Boys had a greater 1-min HRR than men following maximal (58 ± 8 vs. 47 ± 11 beats·min(-1)) and submaximal (59 ± 8 vs. 47 ± 15 beats·min(-1)) exercise (p < 0.05). Following maximal exercise, boys had greater ln root mean square successive differences in R-R intervals (2.52 ± 0.95 ms), ln standard deviation of NN intervals (3.34 ± 0.57 ms), ln high-frequency power (4.32 ± 2.00 ms(2)), and ln low-frequency power (4.98 ± 1.17 ms(2)) than men (1.33 ± 0.37 ms, 2.52 ± 0.24 ms, 1.32 ± 1.06 ms(2) and 2.80 ± 0.74 ms(2), respectively) (p < 0.05). There were no differences in any HRV variables between groups following submaximal exercise (p > 0.05). In conclusion, it appears that greater parasympathetic modulation accounts for greater HRR following maximal exercise in boys versus men. Although submaximal HRR was greater in boys, parasympathetic responses were similar between groups.
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) | 0.002 | 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".