Trial reportPloS one2025
Box breathing or six breaths per minute: Which strategy improves athletes post-HIIT cardiovascular recovery?
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-exercise recovery strategies are critical for athletic performance, yet the acute effects of controlled breathing techniques (box breathing vs. 6 bpm [6 breaths/min]) following high-intensity interval training (HIIT) remain understudied. This study compared three breathing protocols' impact on cardiovascular and perceptual recovery metrics. In a randomized crossover design, 40 physically active university students (25 males, 15 females; age 20.95 ± 1.75 years) completed three HIIT sessions on a spin bike (15 min, 1:2 work: rest ratio at 85-95% HRmax). One of three recovery breathing protocols was applied during each session: Spontaneous breathing (control), Box breathing (4-4-4-4), 6 bpm (5-5). Heart rate (HR) was monitored continuously, and perceived exertion was assessed via Borg Scale (6-20). Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Box breathing elicited significantly: Higher post-exercise HR (164.65 ± 9.40 bpm) vs. 6 bpm (154.77 ± 12.18 bpm; p < 0.001*, Cohen's d = 0.907*) and spontaneous breathing (159.05 ± 10.38 bpm; p = 0.054*), Elevated perceived exertion (Borg 17.27 ± 1.30) vs. 6 bpm (15.25 ± 1.08; p < 0.001*) and spontaneous breathing (15.25 ± 1.35; p < 0.001*). No significant difference in recovery time was observed (p = 0.128*), though box breathing showed a trend toward delayed HR baseline recovery (753.02 ± 150.60 sec vs. 675.70 ± 157.24 sec with 6 bpm). While 6 bpm appears optimal for post-HIIT recovery, box breathing may impose physiological and perceptual stress. Practitioners should tailor breathing strategies to individual tolerance and exercise intensity. These findings highlight the need for personalized recovery protocols in athletic training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.