Predefined vs data‐guided training prescription based on autonomic nervous system variation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring variations in the functioning of the autonomic nervous system may help personalize training of runners and provide more pronounced physiological adaptations and performance improvements. We systematically reviewed the scientific literature comparing physiological adaptations and/or improvements in performance following training based on responses of the autonomic nervous system (ie, changes in heart rate variability) and predefined training. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched systematically in July 2019. Keywords related to endurance, running, autonomic nervous system, and training. Studies were included if they (a) involved interventions consisting predominantly of running training; (b) lasted at least 3 weeks; (c) reported pre‐ and post‐intervention assessment of running performance and/or physiological parameters; (d) included an experimental group performing training adjusted continuously on the basis of alterations in HRV and a control group; and (e) involved healthy runners. Five studies involving six interventions and 166 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Four HRV‐based interventions reduced the amount of moderate‐ and/or high‐intensity training significantly. In five interventions, improvements in performance parameters (3000 m, 5000 m, Loadmax, Tlim) were more pronounced following HRV‐based training. Peak oxygen uptake ( ) and submaximal running parameters (eg, LT1, LT2) improved following both HRV‐based and predefined training, with no clear difference in the extent of improvement in . Submaximal running parameters tended to improve more following HRV‐based training. Research findings to date have been limited and inconsistent. Both HRV‐based and predefined training improve running performance and certain submaximal physiological adaptations, with effects of the former training tending to be greater.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".