Effect of Intensity on Changes in Cardiac Autonomic Control of Heart Rate and Arterial Stiffness After Equated Continuous Running Training Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is well known that exercise training has positive effects on both cardiac autonomic function and arterial stiffness (AS). However, it is not clear that which exercise training variables, intensity or volume, or both, play a crucial role in this regard. This study investigates the chronic effects of high-volume moderate-intensity training (HVMIT) and low-volume high-intensity training (LVHIT) on heart rate variability (HRV) and AS in sedentary adult men. Materials and Methods: Notably, 45 males (age: 42 ± 5.7 years) were randomly assigned to a control (n = 15), HVMIT (n = 15), or LVHIT (n = 15). The HVMIT group ran three times per week on a treadmill at 50–60% of VO2max for 45–60 min, while the LVHIT trained at 70–85% of VO2max for 25–40 min. Both training protocols were equated by caloric expenditure. HRV, pulse wave velocity (PWV), hemodynamic variables, and body composition were measured before and after 12 weeks. Results: Both protocols (i.e., HVMIT and LVHIT) significantly increased the SD of normal sinus beat intervals (SDNN) and high-frequency (HF) bands (p < 0.05) after 12 weeks. Whereas the low-frequency (LF)-HF ratio decreased significantly in both training protocols (p < 0.05); however, these changes were significantly greater in the LVHIT protocol (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the root mean square of successive RR interval differences (RMSSD) significantly increased only in the LVHIT (p < 0.05). Moreover, a significant decrease in LF and PWV was only observed following the LVHIT protocol (p < 0.05). Some measures of HRV and PWV were significantly correlated (r = 0.275–0.559; p < 0.05). Conclusion: These results show that the LVHIT protocol was more efficient for improving HRV variables and PWV than the HVMIT protocol after 12 weeks of continuous running training. Interestingly, changes in some HRV parameters were related to changes in PWV. Further studies should elaborate on the link between central and peripheral cardiovascular adaptations after continuous and intermittent training regimens differing in intensity.
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".