Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
1
Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
(JEPonline)
Volume 13 Number 2 April 2010
Managing Editor
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Jon K. Linderman, PhD
Review Board
Todd Astorino, PhD
Julien Baker, PhD
Tommy Boone, PhD
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
Alexander Hutchison, PhD
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD
Derek Marks, PhD
Cristine Mermier, PhD
Chantal Vella, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD
Official
Research Journal of
the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists
(ASEP)
ISSN 1097-975
Fitness and Training
Heart Rate Recovery Following Strength Exercise
GEORGE VIEIRA1, ADRIANO EDUARDO LIMA-SILVA2, FERNANDO
ROBERTO DE-OLIVEIRA3
1Physical
Effort Laboratory/CDS/ Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil, 2Sports Science Research Group,
Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil, 3Nemoh/ Federal
University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Vieira G, Lima-Silva AE, De-Oliveira FR. Heart Rate Recovery
Following Strength Exercise. JEPonline 2010;13(2):1-9. The aim of this
study was to analyze the effects of intensity, type of exercise, and
gender on kinetics of heart rate (HR) recovery. Six men and six women
(22.7 ± 2.1 years, 171.9 ± 10.9 cm, 66.3 ± 11.8 kg) performed two tests
of 1RM in the leg press and bench press. After at least a 24-h period,
the subjects performed a set until exhaustion at 80% of 1RM in bench
press or leg press (in random order), followed by a 5-min recovery and
then another set of the same exercise at 60% of 1RM. After five minutes,
the subjects performed the same sequence in the opposite exercise.
The values of HR (bpm) were mathematically adjusted, and the following
variables were obtained: speed (τ) and amplitude (Amp) of decay, and
HR at stabilization (HRbase). The HRbase was higher in leg press than in
bench press (92 ± 18 vs 81 ± 18 bpm), with a tendency of the changes
in HRbase being dependent on gender (bench press female= 85 ± 22 and
male= 76 ± 12 bpm vs leg press female= 87 ± 21 and male= 97 ± 13
bpm, p=0.09). The Amp was similar for all intensities, exercises, and
gender. The τ changed significantly with the type of exercise and gender
(bench press female= 31.7 ± 14.6 and male= 62.3 ± 31.3 vs leg press
female= 61.1 ± 17.6 and male= 53.9 ± 16.0 s, p<0.05). The intensity
showed no significant effect on any of the studied variables. These
results suggest that HR recovery is influenced by the type of exercise
and the magnitude of these changes is dependent on the gender.
Key Words: Upper Body Exercise, Lower Body Exercise,
Cardiovascular
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
2
NTRODUCTION
Resistance training has been the most effective method for development of muscular strength and it
is currently prescribed by important health organizations to improve individual’s fitness and health
(18). When incorporated into a comprehensive fitness program, resistance training has demonstrated
to be able to reduce risk factors associated with coronary heart disease, non–insulin-dependent
diabetes and to prevent lean body mass reduction caused by traditional exercise programs (4,18).
Also, resistance training has become a common tool to prevent osteoporosis, functional incapacity
and dynamic instability (18).
The heart rate (HR) response to exercise allows noninvasive assessment of the behavior of the
cardiovascular system during effort, as well as to determine the subjects’ fitness level. HR is easily
monitored and can be used to control intensity of aerobic exercises (1). On the other hand, in strength
exercises, the prescription and control of intensity are designed, mainly, for relative loads to onerepetition maximum (1RM) (11). However, this parameter does not provide the magnitude of stress
caused to the cardiovascular system. The relationship between strength training and cardiovascular
system responses has been recently explored (20) and can provide important information about the
training intensity (12).
The HR recovery is also a common used parameter to measure the cardiovascular fitness in aerobic
exercises (5,9). Savin et al. (22) described the behavior of the HR after aerobic exercises and
suggested that HR recovery decreases exponentially in two phases during short-term recovery. The
first phase elicits a fast decay in HR (fast component) followed by a second phase of slower decay
(slow component). The fast decay in HR observed after exercise could occur, mainly, due to the
parasympathetic reactivation; and afterwards the reduction in HR would be attributed to the lowered
sympathetic activity (2,9,14,24). Despite such evidence obtained in aerobic exercise, the behavior of
HR after strength exercise is still little known.
Different factors may provoke discrepancies in HR recovery including physiological and
morphological differences between men and women (3), recruited muscle mass during exercise,
differences between upper and lower limbs (20), and exercise intensity (10,21,23,25). The isolated or
combined effects of these factors on HR recovery have not been extensively investigated. Therefore,
the present study was designed to verify if there are differences in parameters derived from the HR
recovery curve among different intensities, types of exercise, and gender.
METHODS
Subjects
Twelve healthy subjects, six women (22.8 ± 2.8 years; 163.6 ± 6.3 cm; 57.5 ± 6.1 kg; 18.7 ± 4.3 %
body fat) and six men (22.7 ± 1.6 years; 180.2 ± 7.6 cm; 75.2 ± 9.0 kg; 10.4 ± 1.8 % body fat), with
experience in resistance training, were selected to participate in the study. All subjects signed an
informed consent before initiating the tests. The adopted procedures were approved by the ethics
committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina.
Procedures
Initially, the subjects were submitted to anthropometric measurements to estimate the percentage of
body fat. For women the skinfolds of triceps, suprailiac and thigh were measured and the body fat
estimated by the Jackson, Pollock and Ward’s equation (16). For men the skinfolds of chest,
abdomen and thigh were measured and body fat estimated by Jackson and Pollock’s equation (15).
After the anthropometric measurements, the subjects performed two tests to determine 1RM (bench
press and leg press, in random order). Before the tests a 10-min warm up was carried out and
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
3
consisted of a moderate running on a running track, followed by a specific warm up where it was
allowed the execution of 1 set of 15 repetitions.
After a 24-h period, the subjects returned to the laboratory and performed tests to obtain the highest
number of repetitions until exhaustion (figure 1). The sequence was conducted at 80% and 60% of
1RM. This sequence was based on previous data obtained by Wilborn et al. (25) where it was
demonstrated that cardiovascular stress was higher at 65% than 85% of 1RM. The execution of leg
press vs bench press exercises were performed in random order.
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
STAGE 3
Anthropometric
measurements
Tests of 1RM
24 hr
Bench press
Leg press
Random
Maximal number of
repetitions assessment
Bench press 80%
5-min recovery
Bench press 60%
5-min recovery
Random
Leg press 80%
5-min recovery
Leg press 60%
5-min recovery
Figure 1. The Experimental Design.
1RM Tests
The tests of 1RM were realized with the initial load established in accordance with the experience of
the subject evaluated. The subjects were asked to execute a complete movement. In the cases
where the subjects were able to execute two movements, a 5-min recovery period was permitted and
the test was resumed with a greater load. A maximum number of three consecutive attempts were
established to get the maximum load in each test. In case it was not possible to obtain the subjects’
maximum load, a change of exercise was permitted to alternate muscle groups and the maximum
load of the other exercise was obtained. This last procedure was necessary for only one subject.
Maximal Number of Repetitions Assessment
The individuals were oriented to perform the movements in a moderate speed. All the sets were
executed until exhaustion with 5-min interval between them. After each set of repetitions, the subjects
remained laid on a bench in supine position during the five minutes. In all recovery intervals, the HR
was measured at 5-sec intervals (Polar Electro Oy, S610i). The last value of heart rate obtained
during the tests was referred as HRpeak. The number of repetitions (NR) was identified as being the
total amount of exercise performed in each exercise. The total volume (TV) was calculated multiplying
the weight by NR.
Leg Press and Bench Press Exercises
The execution of the exercises in our study followed the American College of Sports Medicine
procedures and recommendations (17), regarding the use of the bench press to evaluate strength of
arms, and leg press to evaluate strength of legs. Leg press tests were executed on a leg press
machine (Vitally® mark, model ML209), and the bench press on a bench press machine (Vitally®
mark, model ML206).
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
4
Data Analysis
The values of HR (bpm) during the recovery phase were plotted against time (s) and adjusted with a
mono-exponential function:
HR = HRbase + Amp • exp - (t/τ)
Where: HRbase is the HR at stabilization during the recovery; Amp is the amplitude decay of the HR; t
is time for a given estimated HR value; τ is a time constant that represents the time necessary to
reach 63% of the amplitude decay of the HR. The curves were adjusted to absolute (bpm) and
relative values (%) of the HRpeak.
Statistical Analysis
Normal distribution of the data was checked by Shapiro-Wilk's test. A 3-way analysis of variance
(factor 1 = intensity; factor 2 = type of exercise; and factor 3 = gender) followed by Scheffe’s post-hoc
test were used for comparison among the variables derived from the monoexponencial adjustment
(HRpeak, NR, and TV). Student’s t-Test for independent samples was used to compare 1RM between
men and women, and Pearson’s linear correlation analysis for verification of associations between
the variables. The values are presented as mean  SD. Level of significance was established at p<
0.05 for all analyses.
RESULTS
The NR in the bench press exercise at 60% of 1RM did not show normal distribution and the
comparisons that involved this variable were performed using a logarithmic scale conversion. The
other variables were
Table 1. Maximal load (1RM), maximal number of repetitions (NR), and total
compared with original
volume (TV) at 60% and 80% of 1RM in bench press and leg press exercises.
values.
Intensity
Men
Women
Pooled Data
1RM –bench press (kg)
79.7 ± 12.5*
38.3 ± 7.5
59.0 ± 24.0
The maximum load, the
NR, and TV of men
310.0 ± 71.5*
203.3 ± 43.2
257.0 ± 79.0
1RM –leg press (kg)
and women in the two
exercises are shown in
7±2
9±4
NR –bench press 80%
8 ± 4†
Table 1. 1RM was
17 ± 3
23 ± 8
20 ± 7**,†
NR –bench press 60%
significantly
different
between
the
genders
in
15 ± 10
16 ± 7
16 ± 9
NR –leg press 80%
both exercises. The NR
28 ± 7
33 ± 11
30 ± 9**
NR –leg press 60%
for all intensities and
types of exercise was
422.7 ± 160.2*
284.0 ± 151.1
TV –bench press 80%
353 ± 165†
not
significantly
different
between
the
808.4 ± 207.1*
520.2 ± 164.0
664 ± 233**,†
TV –bench press 60%
genders, but women
tended
to
perform
3562.7 ± 1908.7*
2606.7 ± 1196.8
3085 ± 1599
TV –leg press 80%
higher NR than men
4998.0 ± 514.4*
3998.0 ± 1620.7
4498 ± 1260**
TV –leg press 60%
(p=0.09). The men
performed a greater TV
*Significant differences between men and women (p < 0.05). ** Significantly higher
than the women for all
than corresponding values at 80% of 1RM in the same exercise (p < 0.01). †
intensities and types of
Significantly lower than corresponding values in the leg press (p < 0.01).
exercise (p= 0.047).
The NR and TV were significantly higher in leg press than in bench press (p<0.05). The NR and TV
were also higher in exercise performed at 60% than 80% of 1RM (p<0.05).
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
5
The HRbase was significantly higher in leg press (92 ± 18 bpm) than in bench press (81 ± 18 bpm)
(p<0.05). There was a tendency for HRbase variations to be dependent on gender, with the interaction
between gender and type of exercise near significance level (p=0.09). The women demonstrated
greater values of HRbase in the bench press (85 ± 22 bpm) than the men (76 ± 12 bpm). On the other
hand, in leg press, the highest values were showed by the men (97 ± 13 bpm) compared with the
women (87 ± 21 bpm) (figure 2A). No significant effect of the intensity was found (p = 0.62). When
expressed relative to the HRpeak, no significant effect of the type of exercise, gender, and intensity
were found.
The decrease in amplitude was similar for all the intensities, types of exercises, and gender whether
expressed in absolute or relative values. The time constant (τ) modified significantly in accordance
with the type of exercise, interacting with gender (interaction between the factors gender - type of
exercise, p<0.05). In the bench press, the values were higher in men (62.3 ± 31.0 s) than in women
(31.7 ± 14.6 s, p<0.05). However, the women showed greater values (61.1 ± 17.6 s) than the men
(53.9 ± 16.0 s, p<0.05) in the leg press (figure 2B). The same behavior was found when using relative
values. No significant effect of intensity was found (p = 0.37).
The HRpeak was significantly higher in leg press (148 ± 17 bpm) than in bench press (126 ± 27 bpm)
(p=0.002). The HRpeak was lower (in average 7%) during exercise at 80% compared to 60% of 1 RM
for both exercises, but not reaching statistical significance (p=0.15) (figure 2C). No significant effect of
gender was found (p = 0.30).
150
100
50
0
Bench press
A
Men
Leg press
Women
100
p<0.001
50
0
Bench press
Leg press
HRpeak (bpm)
p=0.09
200
Time Constant (s)
HRbase (bpm)
Figure 2: HRbase (A), time constant (B) and HRpeak (C) in men and women after bench press and leg press at
60% and 80% of 1RM.
200
p<0.001
150
100
50
0
Bench press
B
Men
Women
C
60% of 1RM
Leg press
80% of 1RM
1RM was positively associated with the time constant for all intensities and exercises (r values
between 0.65 and 0.78; p<0.01). The TV was also positively correlated with the time constant in the
bench press at 80% and 60% of 1RM (r= 0.78 and 0.86, respectively). The other derived variables of
the HR recovery curve did not demonstrate significant associations with TV. The NR showed
association with the HRbase only at 60% of 1RM in leg press and bench press (r= 0.68 and 0.64,
respectively), and with the HRpeak in the bench press exercise at 80% of 1RM (r= 0.65; p<0.01).
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study indicate that HR recovery is influenced by both, type of exercise and
gender. The HR stabilization was significantly higher after lower than upper body exercise but it may
be gender dependent. The HR stabilization after upper body exercise was higher for women than
men, but the opposite was observed when HR stabilization was measured after lower body exercise.
Similarly, the time to attain stabilization after upper body exercise was significantly higher for men
than women, but it was also the opposite of lower body exercise.
In this study the HRpeak did not modify because of the intensity put on lower and upper body exercise.
The total time of effort was not measured, however the NR and TV were greater at 60% of 1RM than
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
6
at 80% of 1RM in both exercises. Furthermore the results of this and other studies (10, 23, 25)
indicate an existing peak zone for HR response during strength training between 50 and 80% of 1RM.
Wilborn et al. (25) suggest that the higher increase in HR observed at lower intensities can be
attributed mainly to the longer duration of effort.
We established that HRpeak corresponded to the last value recorded during the exercise, even though
this value did not always correspond to the greater value of HR. Despite of the latter, we did not find a
significant difference between the greater value of HR during the test and the values of HR at the end
of exercise (data not shown). These findings corroborate the results showed in others studies (10, 21,
19) demonstrating that the highest values of HR tend to occur at the final stage of strength exercises
and, normally, occur in the complete repetition before the point of voluntary fatigue. It was expected
since in strength exercises cardiovascular responses tend to raise when the muscles become
fatigued, due to a combination of factors such as a greater voluntary effort of the fatigued muscles to
continue generating the same strength and greater recruitment of accessory muscles (20, 21).
Studies that have analyzed the HR recovery have adopted different recovery periods (24). In the
present study, a 5-min recovery period was adopted. In a previous pilot study, we observed evidence
that a 5-min recovery was enough to describe the behavior of the HR until its stabilization (HR base) in
all the intensities, types of exercise, and gender used here. Moreover, in short-term recoveries such
as the adopted in our study, the HR kinetics demonstrates to be well described by monoexponential
adjustment (14,22). From a practical standpoint, it may be more interesting for coaches to measure
HR recovery with short intervals.
It was found in the present study that HRbase was higher in leg press than in bench press, suggesting
that lower body exercise increase the HR of stabilization. Ichinose et al. (13) suggest that
cardiovascular responses during dynamic and static exercises are mediated by some factors such as
central command, feedback mechanisms via afferent nerves (group III and IV fibers), and arterial and
cardiopulmonary baroreflexes. During heavy exercise, the arterial baroreflexes and muscle
metaboreflexes are both activated regulating cardiovascular responses and sympathetic nerve
activity. After strength exercises, the fast reduction in blood pressure can reflect on a rise in perfusion
of vasodilated active muscle in combination with baroreflex response initialized during exercise (20,
21). Therefore, it is possible that the muscle mass recruited during exercise exerts an important
function in the hypotension after exercise, and HR could rise as a compensatory mechanism to
prevent acute reduction in blood pressure. This may explain the greater values of HRbase in the leg
press than bench press.
It was found in the present study greater values for HRpeak in the leg press, probably, due to the
greater activated muscle mass and time of effort. Similarly, Imai et al. (14) indicated that the behavior
of these cardiovascular variables could be explained by central mechanisms such as the release of
inhibitory commands from the motor cortex to the parasympathetic center. On the other hand, at the
end of exercise, there is an inhibition of the motor cortex followed by vagal reactivation preventing an
excessive cardiovascular work after exercise. These data suggest that cardiovascular recovery is
partially dependent on cardiovascular response during exercise. Moreover, afferent stimulation from
peripheral chemoreceptor may justify a delayed sympathetic withdrawal and also contributing for
maintenance of a higher HR after exercise.
The differences in strength between men and women could be influenced by the type of exercise and
the amount of recruited muscle mass. The women’s value for 1RM was at  48% of the men’s
absolute value in bench press and at  66% for leg press. Ettinger et al. (8) verified that the muscle
mass and the tension generated in a static exercise were lower in women than in men. Several
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
7
mechanisms mediate post-exercise recovery of the cardiovascular system, and these mechanisms
can differently modulate men’s and women’s responses. There is evidence that women have lower
tolerance to various orthostatic positions compared with men (6,7). The greater need for
cardiovascular adjustment to oscillation in the body position observed in women may also help to
explain, in part, the lower decreasing velocity of heart rate in the leg press. This may have occurred
due to the change in body position after exercise (seated for supine position).
The amplitude decay was similar between the types of exercise and intensities, supporting that
HRpeak and HRbase exhibit a synchronous response to physical effort, which could also prevent acute
post-exercise blood hypotension. However, the HRpeak demonstrated a significant association with the
HRbase only at 80% in the bench press (r = 0.64, p<0.03) and in leg press (r = 0.84, p<0.01).
Mcdougall et al. (21) suggest that the level of effort in strength exercises seems to be the most
important factor for the rise in blood pressure during exercise. Therefore, higher intensities may
unleash greater hypotensive effect after exercise and the heart rate may remain elevated during
recovery to compensate for the sharp fall in arterial blood pressure. Thus, it is suggested that further
investigations may determine the magnitude and influence the arterial pressure may exert on heart
rate recovery and associated variables.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our observations demonstrate that the type of exercise is an important factor
influencing HR responses during and after strength exercise. In addition, the HR recovery differences
between leg press and bench press were strongly gender-dependent. Our results also suggest that
HR during exercise is dependent on the intensity, but the same does not occur with HR recovery. In
practical terms, we concluded that leg press have a higher HR response and these findings show the
influence of muscle mass on the cardiovascular system; therefore if the objective of the strength
exercise is to cause a lesser rise in HR then a lesser amount of muscle mass must be required.
Address for correspondence: George Vieira, MSc. Servidão Marciano João da Silveira, 101.
Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil, 88047-230. Phone (55) 0xx48-96022102; E-mail.
george_vieira@hotmail.com.
REFERENCES
1.
Achten J and Jeukendrup AE. Heart rate monitoring: applications and limitations. Sports Med
2003;33(7):517-538.
2.
Arai Y, Saul JP, Albrecht P, Howard HH, Lilly LS, Cohen RJ and Colucci WS. Modulation of
cardiac autonomic activity during and immediately after exercise. Heart Cir Physiol 1989;25:
132-141.
3.
Åstrand P and Rodahl K. Textbook of Work Physiology. New York: McGraw Hill, 1986.
4.
Bjarnason-Wehrens B, Mayer-Berger W, Meister ER, Baum K, Hambrecht R and Gielen S.
Recommendations for resistance exercise in cardiac rehabilitation. Recommendations of the
german federation for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitaton. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev
Rehabil 2004;11(4):352-361.
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
8
5.
Carnethon MR, Jacobs DR, Sidney S, Stenfeld B. Gidding SS, Shoushtari C and Liu K. A
longitudinal study of physical activity and heart rate recovery: CARDIA, 1987 – 1993. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2005;37(4):606-612.
6.
Carter III R, Watenpaugh DE and Smith ML. Selected contribution: Gender differences in
cardiovascular regulation during recovery from exercise. J Appl Physiol 2001;91:1902-1907.
7.
Convertino VA. Gender differences in autonomic functions associated with blood pressure
regulation. J Appl Physiol 1998;44:R1909-R1920.
8.
Ettinger SM, Silber DH, Collins BG, Gray KS, Sutliff G, Whisler SK, McClain JM, Smith MB,
Yang QX and Sinoway LI. Influence of gender on sympathetic nerve responses to static
exercise. J Appl Physiol 1996;80(1):245-251.
9.
Fernandez TC, Adami F, Pereira Costa V, Lima Silva AE and De-Oliveira FR. Heart rate
recovery as an index to aerobic aptitude. Revista da Educação Física/UEM. 2005;16(2):29137.
10.
Fleck SJ and Dean LS. Resistance-training experience and the pressor response during
resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 1987;63(1):116-20.
11.
Fleck SJ and Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs. 2nd ed. Champaign
(IL): Human Kinetics Books, 1997.
12.
Hass CJ, Feigenbaum MS and Franklin BA. Prescription of resistance training for healthy
populations. Sports Med 2001;31(14):953-964l.
13.
Ichinose M, Saito M, Wada H, Kitano A, Kondo N, Nishiyasu T. Modulation of arterial
baroreflex control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity by muscle metaboreflex in humans.
Heart Circ Physiol 2004;286:701-707.
14.
Imai K, Sato H, Hori M, Kusuoka H, Ozaki H, Yokoyama H, Takeda H, Inoue M and Kamada T.
Vagally mediated heart rate recovery after exercise is accelerated in athletes but blunted in
patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:1529-35.
15.
Jackson AS and Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J
Nutr 1978;40(3):497-504.
16.
Jackson AS, Pollock ML and Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of
women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980;12(3):175-81.
17.
Kenney WL, Mahler DA, Humphrey RH and Bryant CX. ACSM guidelines for exercise
testing and prescription.Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.
18.
Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E,Dudley GA, Dooly C, Feigenbaum MS, Fleck SJ, Franklin
B, Fry AC, Hoffman JR, Potteiger J, Stone MH, Ratamess NA, Triplett-McBride T. American
College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in resistance training for
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34(2):364-380.
Heart Rate Recovery and Strength
9
19.
Mccartney N, Mcvelvie RS, Martin J, Sale DG and Mcdougall JD. Weight-training-induced
attenuation of the circulatory response of older males to weight lifting. J Appl Physiol 1993,
74(3):1056-1060.
20.
Mccartney N. Acute responses to resistance training and safety. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;
31(1):31-37.
21.
Mcdougall JD, Tuxen D, Sale DG and Moroz JR. Arterial blood pressure response to heavy
resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985;58(3):785-790.
22.
Savin WM, Davison, DM and Haskell WL. Autonomic contribution to heart rate recovery from
exercise in humans. J Appl Physiol 1982;53(6):1572-1575.
23.
Stone MH, Rozenek R, Rosenau L and Rosenau P. The effect of intensity on heart rate and
blood lactate response to resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 1993;7(1):51-54.
24.
Terziotti P, Shena F and Gulli G. Post-exercise recovery of autonomic cardiovascular control: a
study by spectrum and cross-spectrum analysis in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001;84:187194.
25.
Wilborn C, Greenwood M, Wyatt F, Bowden R and Grose D. The effects of exercise intensity
and body position on cardiovascular variables during resistance exercise. JEPonline 2004;
7(4):29-36.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in JEPonline are those of the authors and are not attributable to JEPonline,
the editorial staff or ASEP.