Effects of exercise modalities on heart rate recovery and its association with cardiometabolic risk in adolescents with overweight or obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attenuated heart rate recovery (HRR) immediately after exercise is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults. We examined the effects of aerobic exercise (AE), resistance exercise (RE), and combined AE and RE on HRR, and the relationship of HRR with body composition and metabolic risk factors in adolescents with overweight or obesity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included 147 adolescents (BMI ≥ 85th percentile, 12-18 years) who participated in exercise intervention studies (3-6 months), and had a complete data set including VO2peak, body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and cardiometabolic risk factors before and after the interventions. HRR was calculated as the difference between peak HR during the maximal treadmill test and HR at 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-min after the cessation of the test. RESULTS: After interventions, a faster HRR at 2-5 min was observed following AE (17.3-25.6% change, P < 0.0001), RE (7.1-10.9%, P < 0.05), and combined AE and RE (10.7-12.0%, P < 0.05) compared to pre-intervention. Compared to controls, AE (14.0-24.0%, P < 0.05) was the only exercise group to exhibit a significantly faster HRR at 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-min after the exercise intervention. Collapsed across exercise groups, improvements in 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-min HRR are independently associated (P < 0.05) with increases in VO2peak. Changes in HRR were not associated with the changes in % body fat or metabolic risk factors. CONCLUSION: AE training is more beneficial than RE or combined AE and RE training for improving HRR in adolescents with overweight or obesity.
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".