ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2024
Comparison of 1-hour floatation-REST versus conventional napping on heart rate variability in active individuals.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Heart rate variability response to low-frequency sounds vibrations in regularly active male subjects.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the short-term effects of a 1-hour floatation-resting environmental therapy (FLO) versus conventional napping (NAP) on heart rate variability (HRV) in highly trained individuals. Methods: 20 non-fatigued participants underwent a prospective randomised interventional study comparing the impacts of FLO and NAP on both supine and standing HRV. Measurements were taken before and after each intervention under controlled conditions, and subjective experiences were assessed through questionnaires. Results: FLO and NAP were associated with changes in HRV parameters but did so differently. NAP significantly enhanced supine parasympathetic activity, as evidenced by increased log-transformed root mean square of successive differences (p=0.02) and power spectral density (p=0.03) relative to heart rate (HR) values, confirming its effectiveness in promoting autonomic recovery. In contrast, despite being better perceived regarding subjective well-being (p=0.04), FLO conferred no significant changes in supine root mean square of successive differences and decreased power spectral density relative to HR (p=0.02). However, post-intervention comparisons were not statistically different. While supine HR decreased significantly following both interventions, standing HR measurements showed a non-significant increase for FLO compared with NAP (p=0.056). Conclusion: In highly trained individuals, FLO and NAP demonstrated minimal impact on acute autonomic function. NAP appears more effective for enhancing short-term parasympathetic activity, while FLO provides a more enjoyable experience. These findings underscore the importance of personalised recovery strategies and emphasise the need for further research into individual responses and the long-term effects of these interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.