The effects of morning versus evening high-intensity interval exercise on the magnitude of the morning blood pressure surge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) follows a circadian rhythm, dipping during sleep and surging in the morning. A larger morning BP surge is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Acute exercise can produce sustained periods of post-exercise hypotension that last up to 24 h; however, the timing of exercise (morning vs. evening) may influence this response. Whether the timing of exercise influences the morning BP surge remains unknown. The current study investigated the effects of a bout of high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) performed in the morning versus evening on the magnitude of the morning BP surge in young healthy adults. Twenty-six young, otherwise healthy adults (23 ± 4 years; 15 females) completed a randomized crossover trial where, on different days, they completed a no exercise control visit or performed either morning (0800–1000 h) or evening (1700–1900 h) HIIE. Following each visit, ambulatory BP was assessed in 30 min intervals for 24 hrs. HIIE at either time did not alter the magnitude of the morning BP surge compared to control values (control: 22 ± 5 mmHg; morning exercise: 20 ± 8 mmHg; evening exercise: 22 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.40) or when grouped separately by sex (visit × sex P = 0.42). A positive correlation existed between Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire score and the change in nighttime BP following both exercise times (both r = 0.42 and P = 0.04). These findings suggest that HIIE does not attenuate the morning BP surge in young healthy adults and that chronotype can predict nighttime BP responses following HIIE, irrespective of exercise time of day. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06702930).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".