Thermoneutral immersion exercise accelerates heart rate recovery: A potential novel training modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study compared heart rate recovery (HRR) after incremental maximal exercise performed at the same external power output ( P ext ) on dry land ergocycle (DE) vs. immersible ergocycle (IE). Fifteen young healthy participants (30 ± 7 years, 13 men and 2 women) performed incremental maximal exercise tests on DE and on IE. The initial P ext on DE was 25 W and was increased by 25 W/min at a pedalling cadence between 60 and 80 rpm, while during IE immersion at chest level in thermoneutral water (30°C), the initial P ext deployment was at a cadence of 40 rpm which was increased by 10 rpm until 70 rpm and thereafter by 5 rpm until exhaustion. Gas exchange and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously during exercise and recovery for 5 min. Maximal HR (DE: 176 ± 15 vs. IE 169 ± 12 bpm) reached by the subjects in the two conditions did not differ ( P > .05). Parasympathetic reactivation parameters (ΔHR from 10 to 300 s) were compared during the DE and IE HR recovery recordings. During the IE recovery, parasympathetic reactivation in the early phase was more predominant (HRR at Δ10–Δ60 s, P < .05), but similar in the late phase (HRR at Δ120–Δ300 s, P > .05) when compared to the DE condition. In conclusion, incremental maximal IE exercise at chest level immersion in thermoneutral water accelerates the early phase parasympathetic reactivation compared to DE in healthy young participants.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".