Effects of high-intensity intervals and moderate-intensity exercise on baroreceptor sensitivity and heart rate variability during recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have examined heart rate variability (HRV) and cardiac baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) variables during recovery both acutely (under 3 h) and long-term (24, 48, and 72 h) postexercise. However, there is little literature examining HRV and BRS measures between these timepoints. Spontaneous short-term HRV and cardiac BRS measures were collected in 9 participants before and at zero, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h after 3 separate conditions: moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE; 45 min at 50% heart rate reserve), high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE; 25 min including ten 1-min intervals at 85% heart rate reserve), and control (30 min quiet rest). HRV measures in the time domain were only affected immediately following HIIE and MICE at hour zero (all p < 0.043), whereas frequency-domain metrics were unaltered (all p > 0.102). These measures were highly consistent across the control day (all p > 0.420). Cardiac BRS was assessed via low-frequency (LF) gain, and revealed reductions following HIIE at hour zero (p < 0.012). Cardiac BRS LF gain remained consistent following MICE and control interventions (all p > 0.280). The common practice of waiting 12 to 24 h is overly conservative as the current findings demonstrate measures return to baseline at ∼60 min after exercise. Moreover, these metrics demonstrated high levels of within- and between-day reliability. Novelty Previously a 12-h minimum restriction from exercise was required before participation in HRV/BRS studies. Recovery from moderate-intensity exercise for HRV and BRS metrics was <60 min; whereas, high-intensity intervals led to alterations for approximately 60 min. Spontaneous HRV and cardiac BRS demonstrated high levels of within-day reproducibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".