Long‐term endurance training in older adults preserves cardiovagal control but not heart rate responses to exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity decreases with age. Estimates of baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) suggest endurance training may preserve PNS activity in older adults. But, do these estimates reflect the physiologic heart rate responses to exercise? We hypothesized that long term endurance training (ET) in older adults (O) would result in similar levels of PNS control, when compared to young healthy controls (Y). Older ET adults (n = 14; 55 ± 4 years; 4 females) and recreationally active controls (n=12; 26 ± 4 years; 6 females) completed repeated 30‐sec bouts of isometric hand grip exercise (IHG) at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction. Baseline PNS was estimated using cardiovagal BRS (sequence method). The ability to withdraw PNS during IHG was assessed by the reduction in high frequency heart rate variability (HRVhf; wavelet‐based power spectral analysis; ln normalized) and the heart rate (HR) response. Mean BRS (Y: 28.8 ± 18.4ms/mmHg vs O: 23.3 ± 15.2ms/mmHg; P >0.05) and decreases in HRVhf from rest (Y: −0.45 ± 0.63 ms 2 vs O: −0.17 ± 0.36 ms 2 ; P >0.05) were not different between groups. However, increases in HR (Y: 7.24 ± 3.36 vs. O: 2.53 ± 1.5 bpm; P =0.0002) from rest were greater in young compared to old. These data suggest that long term ET in older adults can preserve cardiovagal control but not HR responses to a moderate intensity IHG compared to young. Supported by CIHR.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".