Isoflavone does not promote additional effects on heart rate variability of postmenopausal women performing combined exercise training: a clinical, controlled, randomized, double-blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of ingesting isoflavones associated with combined aerobic and resistance exercise training on heart rate variability (HRV) indices in postmenopausal women. Twenty-eight healthy postmenopausal women performed 10 weeks of combined exercise training associated with isoflavone (n = 16) or placebo (n = 12) supplementation. The RR intervals (RRi) were collected for 20 min using a heart rate monitor. Analysis of HRV was performed in time (mean squared difference of successive RRi (RMSSD), standard deviation of all normal RRi (SDNN), and percentage of adjacent RRi differing by more than 50 ms (pNN50)), frequency (low-frequency percentage (LF%), high-frequency percentage (HF%), and low-/high-frequency ratio (LF/HF)), and nonlinear domains (standard deviation of the instantaneous variability of the beat-to-beat interval (SD1), long-term variability of the continuous RRi (SD2), and their ratio (SD2/SD1)). Student’s t test did not show differences between groups in any general baseline characteristic variables. The results of the generalized estimating equation tests did not demonstrate interaction or group effects for any HRV indices. However, the results reported time effects for mean RR (p < 0.001), RMSSD (p = 0.044), and SD1 (p = 0.044), with increases in these indices in response to exercise training. There were no time effects for LF%, HF%, LF/HF, SDNN, pNN50, SD2, or SD2/SD1. In conclusion, isoflavone supplementation did not promote additional effects on HRV indices of postmenopausal women subjected to 10 weeks of combined exercise training. Novelty Combined training improves heart rate variability in postmenopausal women. Isoflavone supplementation did not promote additional effects on heart rate variability in postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".