Paradoxical dissociation between heart rate and heart rate variability following different modalities of exercise in individuals with metabolic syndrome: The RESOLVE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To analyse the effects of different modalities of exercise training on heart rate variability (HRV) in individuals with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Methods and results Eighty MetS participants (aged 50-70 years) were housed and managed in an inpatient medical centre for 21 days, including weekends. Physical activity and food intake/diet were intensively monitored. Participants were randomly assigned into three training groups, differing only by intensity of exercise: moderate-endurance-moderate-resistance ( re), high-resistance-moderate-endurance ( Re), and moderate-resistance-high-endurance ( rE). HRV was recorded before and after the intervention by 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram. Although mean 24-hour heart rate decreased more in Re than re (-11.6 ± 1.6 vs. -4.8 ± 2.1%; P = 0.010), low frequency/high frequency decreased more in re than Re (-20.4 ± 5.5% vs. + 20.4 ± 9.1%; P = 0.002) and rE (-20.4 ± 5.5% vs. -0.3 ± 11.1%; P = 0.003). Very low frequency increased more in Re than re (+121.2 ± 35.7 vs. 42.9 ± 11.3%; P = 0.004). For all HRV parameters, rE ranged between re and Re values. Low frequency/high frequency changes were linked with visceral fat loss only in re (coefficient 5.9, 95% CI 1.9-10.0; P = 0.004). By day 21, HRV parameters of MetS groups (heart rate -8.6 ± 1.0%, standard deviation of R-R intervals + 34.0 ± 6.6%, total power + 63.3 ± 11.1%; P < 0.001) became closer to values of 50 aged-matched healthy controls. Conclusions A 3-week residential programme with intensive volumes of physical activity (15-20 hours per week) enhanced HRV in individuals with MetS. Participants with moderate intensity of training had greater improvements in sympathovagal balance, whereas those with high intensity in resistance training had greater decreases in heart rate and greater increases in very low frequency. Modality-specific relationships were observed between enhanced HRV and visceral fat loss. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00917917.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".