56; HF (nu), p = 0.56, LF/HF, p = 0.47]. Regarding the comparison between moments, we observed that AG-881 LF (ms2), HF (ms2) and HF (nu) were significantly higher at M1 (rest) compared to M2, M3 and M4 of buy LY3039478 exercise in both CP and EP. LF (nu) and LF/HF were significantly lower at M1 compared to M2, M3 and M4 of exercise in both CP and EP. Moreover, LF (ms2) was significantly higher at M2 of exercise compared to M4 of exercise in both CP and EP, while HF (ms2) was significantly higher at M2 of exercise compared to M4 of exercise in EP. Figures 4 and 5 present the behavior of the HRV index in
the time and frequency domains, respectively, during recovery. In relation to the time domain indices, we observed moment effects in the analyzed indices (SDNN and RMSSD, p < 0.001). Regarding the comparison of the SDNN index between recovery and rest (ms), it was significantly reduced at M5, M6 and M7 of recovery compared
to M1 (rest) in both CP and EP. Regarding RMSSD (ms), it was significantly reduced at M5 and M6 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in EP whereas it was significantly decreased at M5, M6, M7, M8 and M9 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) click here in CP. The effect of the protocol on RMSSD (ms) (p = 0.03) was also observed and no time and protocol interaction. Figure 4 Values are means ± standard deviation. SDNN (a) and RMSSD (b) during recovery and the comparison in control and experimental protocols. Final 5 minutes of rest (M1) and
minutes of recovery: 5th to 10th (M5), 15th to 20th (M6), 25th to 30th (M7), 40th to 45th (M8), 55th to 60th (M9). *Different from M5, M6, M7, M8 and M9 (p<0.05). #Different from M1 (p<0.05). Figure 5 Values are means ± standard deviation. LFms2 (a), HFms2 (b), LFnu (c), HFnu (d) and LF/HF (e) during recovery and the comparison in control and experimental protocols. Final 5 minutes of rest (M1) and minutes of recovery: 5th to 10th (M5), 15th to 20th (M6), 25th to 30th (M7), 40th to 45th (M8), 55th to 60th (M9). *Different from M1 (p<0.05). In relation to the frequency domain, time effect was observed in all indices analyzed (p < 0.001) and also Glutamate dehydrogenase the effect of the protocol on HF (nu) (p = 0.02), LF (nu) (p = 0.02) indices and LF/HF (p = 0.01) ratio. Interactions between time and protocol were observed in the LF and HF indices in normalized units (p = 0.009), suggesting better recovery in the hydrated protocol, as shown in Figures 5c and 5d. The LF (ms2) index was reduced at M5 and M6 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in both CP and EP. HF (ms2) was significantly reduced at M5, M6, M7 and M8 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in CP, while it was significantly decreased at M5 and M6 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in EP. In relation to LF (nu), it was significantly increased at M5, M6, M7, M8 and M9 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in CP, whereas it was significantly increased at M5 of recovery compared to M1 (rest) in EP.