Sex differences in autonomic recovery following repeated sinusoidal resistance exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple bodyweight squat is sufficient to cause substantial stress on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) via ~30-50 mmHg blood pressure (BP) oscillations. However, it is unknown to the extent of the ANS is impacted during and immediately following bodyweight and resistance squat-stand maneuvers (SSM) while considering chromosomal sex. Thirteen females and twelve males performed four, 5-minute bouts of squat-stand maneuvers (SSM); two at 0.05 Hz (10-second squat/10-second stand) and two at 0.10 Hz (5-s squat/5-s stand). The SSM were performed using bodyweight resistance and additional external resistance (~20% of bodyweight). Five-minutes of quiet-sitting and quiet-standing were completed immediately following both bodyweight and resistance squats. Heart rate variability (HRV) and baroreceptor sensitivity metrics were extracted from beat-to-beat electrocardiography and systemic BP recordings. Repeated measure Analysis of Variance with generalized eta-squared effect sizes assessed differences between SSM task type and chromosomal sex on ANS metrics. Despite added resistance eliciting greater elevations in blood pressure, no differences in ANS function were noted during competition and recovery between SSM tasks (all p > 0.050; negligible/small effect sizes). During recovery, females had an elevated heart rate (p = 0.017; small effect size), greater time-domain HRV measures (p < 0.047; small effect size), greater high-frequency domain HRV measures (p = 0.002; moderate effect size), and reduced low-frequency domain HRV measures (p = 0.002; moderate effect size). A healthy ANS can modulate repetitive cardiovascular stressors via squat-stand maneuvers in a harmonious manner irrespective of added low-level resistance. Females were more parasympathetically driven following low-level resistance exercise/stress, which may be a cardioprotective trait.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".