Post-exercise cardiac autonomic and cardiovascular responses to heart rate-matched and work rate-matched hypoxic exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of performing hypoxic exercise at the same heart rate (HR) or work rate (WR) as normoxic exercise on post-exercise autonomic and cardiovascular responses. METHODS: = 14.2%) at the same WR as N (H-WR) and hypoxic exercise at the same HR as N (H-HR). Autonomic and cardiovascular assessments were conducted before and after exercise, both at rest and during active squat-stand manoeuvres (SS). RESULTS: Compared to N, H-WR elicited a higher HR response (≈ 83% vs ≈ 75%HRmax, p < 0.001) and H-HR a reduced exercise WR (- 21.1 ± 9.3%, p < 0.001). Cardiac parasympathetic indices were reduced 15 min after exercise and recovered within 60 min in N and H-HR, but not after H-WR (p < 0.05). H-WR altered cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cBRS) both at rest and during SS (specifically in the control of blood pressure fall during standing phases) in the first 60 min after the exercise bout (p < 0.05). Post-exercise hypotension (PEH) did not occur in H-HR (p > 0.05) but lasted longer in H-WR than in N (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate HR-matched hypoxic exercise mimicked post-exercise autonomic responses of normoxic exercise without resulting in significant PEH. This may relate to the reduced WR and the limited associated mechanical/metabolic strain. Conversely, WR-matched hypoxic exercise impacted upon post-exercise autonomic and cardiovascular responses, delaying cardiac autonomic recovery, temporarily decreasing cBRS and evoking prolonged PEH.
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) | 0.002 | 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".