Post-Exercise Hypotension and Reduced Cardiac Baroreflex after Half-Marathon Run: In Men, but Not in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether trained women exhibit similar cardiovascular and cardiac baroreflex alterations after a half-marathon compared to men. Thirteen women (39.1 ± 9.3 years; 165 ± 6 cm; 58.2 ± 7.5 kg; maximal aerobic speed (MAS): 13.7 ± 2.2 km·h−1) and 12 men (45.7 ± 10.5 years; 178 ± 7 cm; 75.0 ± 8.3 kg; MAS: 15.8 ± 2.2 km·h−1) ran an official half-marathon. Before and 60-min after, cardiovascular variables, parasympathetic (heart rate variability analysis) modulation and cardiac baroreflex function (transfer function and sequence analyses) were assessed during supine rest and a squat-stand test. Running performance was slower in women than in men (120 ± 19 vs. 104 ± 14 min for women and men, respectively). However, when expressed as a percentage of MAS, it was similar (78.1 ± 4.6% and 78.2 ± 5.4% of MAS for women and men, respectively). Before the run, women exhibited lower mean blood pressure (BP), cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) compared to men, together with higher parasympathetic indexes. After the race, parasympathetic indexes decreased in both sexes, but remained higher in women. Reduced SV, systolic BP and cardiac baroreflex were observed in men but not in women. Contrary to men, a competitive half-marathon did not trigger post-exercise hypotension and a reduced cardiac baroreflex in 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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".