Muscle metaboreflex modulation of post‐exercise heart rate kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A delay in the post‐exercise recovery heart rate is a strong predictor of mortality that may be mediated by autonomic nervous system dysfunction (e.g., impaired parasympathetic reactivation and/or augmented sympathetic nerve activity, SNA). We tested the hypothesis that augmented SNA during exercise recovery would delay the rate of post‐exercise heart rate decay compared to a control condition (CTL). Twenty‐two healthy adults (13 f; 22 ± 2 yrs; peak VO 2 = 47 ± 7.4 mL/kg/min; BMI = 23.4 kg/m 2 ) performed heavy‐intensity exercise above the ventilatory threshold at 90 ± 6% peak heart rate for 5 min during CTL (no SNA augmentation) and during an experimental (EXP) condition. The EXP condition entailed SNA augmentation via the muscle metaboreflex following 2 min of bilateral isometric handgrip exercise at 30–40% maximal voluntary contraction during cycle ergometry exercise. Bilateral circulatory occlusion was performed during the last 1 min of exercise and continued during 4 min of recovery. Post‐exercise heart rate kinetics were analyzed using paired t ‐tests and significant differences were determined when P < 0.05. There was no difference in end‐exercise heart rate (last 1 min) between CTL (159 ± 3 beats/min) and EXP (158 ± 3 beats/min, P = 0.592), amplitude of heart rate recovery between CTL (−61 ± 2 beats/min) and EXP (−64 ± 2 beats/min, P = 0.178), or end recovery heart rate between CTL (98 ± 3 beats/min) and EXP (94 ± 3 beats/min, P = 0.068). There was a significant difference in heart rate kinetics between CTL (57 ± 3 s) and EXP (69 ± 5 s, P = 0.009). These findings suggest that augmented SNA may modulate a delay in the recovery time for heart rate following heavy intensity exercise. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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".