MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The effects of partial sleep deprivation on blood pressure responses during cycling are intensity dependent

2024· article· en· W4398166974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julian C. Bommarito, Phillip Millar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingIntensity (physics)Sleep deprivationBlood pressureSleep (system call)MedicineInternal medicinePhysiologyEndocrinologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCircadian rhythmPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Exaggerated blood pressure (BP) responses during exercise are associated with increased risk of clinical cardiovascular outcomes. Partial sleep deprivation (PSD), defined as ≤6 hours of sleep, can increase 24-hour ambulatory BP but the effects on exercise BP have not been studied. We hypothesized that acute PSD would augment the exercise BP response to constant load exercise (below and above estimated lactate threshold) and during a 20-min time trial. Methods: Fourteen, healthy adults (22 ± 3 years; 9 males; VO2peak: 43.2 ± 9.5 ml/kg/min [25.3-60.9]) completed a randomized crossover trial where they slept normally (normal sleep-wake schedule for each participant), or sleep was partially deprived (early awakening, 40% of normal sleep duration). Prior to the testing visits, participants completed two familiarization visits under normal sleep conditions. Each participant completed a 12-minute warm (6-minutes below estimated lactate threshold [moderate intensity; 65 ± 24 W] and 6-minutes above estimated lactate threshold but below respiratory compensation point [heavy intensity; 147 ± 60 W]) followed by a time-trial where they were asked to cycle as far as possible in 20 minutes. BP was assessed at rest (BpTRU, Medical Devices) and on the cycle ergometer every 2 minutes during the warmup and 20-minute time-trial (Tango M2, SunTech Medical). Sleep timing and duration was assessed daily for 1-week prior to each testing visit using self-report and an accelerometer worn on the non-dominate wrist (wGT3X-BT, ActiGraph). Results: Resting systolic ( P=0.08) and diastolic BP ( P=0.06) tended to be higher following PSD (normal sleep: 105 ± 8/62 ± 8 mmHg vs. PSD: 107 ± 6/64 ± 7 mmHg). PSD did not alter VO2 during the moderate- (normal sleep: 1291 ± 394 ml/min vs. PSD: 1258 ± 364 ml/min) and heavy-intensity (normal sleep: 1903 ± 758 ml/min vs. PSD: 1893 ± 724 ml/min) warmup or 20-minute time-trial (normal sleep: 2713 ± 1120 ml/min vs. PSD: 2669 ± 1134 ml/min) or distance covered (normal sleep: 10.16 ± 2.024 km vs. PSD: 10.08 ± 2.145 km) and power output (normal sleep: 175 ± 79 W vs. PSD: 173 ± 79 W) during the 20-min time-trial (all P>0.27). Systolic (normal sleep: 140 ± 17 mmHg vs. PSD: 136 ± 11 mmHg, P=0.14) and diastolic (normal sleep: 67 ± 11 mmHg vs. PSD: 69 ± 8 mmHg, P=0.44) BP did not differ during the moderate-intensity warmup following PSD. However, systolic BP was lower during the heavy-intensity warmup (normal sleep: 165 ± 25 mmHg vs. PSD: 155 ± 22 mmHg, P=0.008) and 20-minute time-trial (normal sleep: 174 ± 20 mmHg vs. PSD: 165 ± 25 mmHg, P=0.05) following PSD. No differences were observed in diastolic BP (all P>0.57). Heart rate during the moderate-intensity warmup (normal sleep: 110 ± 11 bpm vs. PSD: 110 ± 10 bpm), heavy-intensity warmup (normal sleep: 137 ± 14 bpm vs. PSD: 136 ± 14 bpm), and time-trial (normal sleep: 171 ± 16 bpm vs. PSD: 169 ± 19 bpm) did not differ between conditions (all P>0.39). Conclusion: In contrast to our hypothesis, these preliminary findings suggest that a single night of PSD results in lower systolic BP responses during heavy-intensity, but not moderate-intensity, cycling exercise. This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grant (P.J.M). This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2024 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiology→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→