Key result
Floatation-REST shows no benefit over napping for post-intervention heart rate variability.
Why the study?
The short-term effects of 1-hour floatation-resting environmental therapy versus conventional napping on heart rate variability in highly trained individuals were unclear.
Does 1-hour floatation-resting environmental therapy improve heart rate variability compared to conventional napping in highly trained individuals?
RCT (n=20)
randomised
Does 1-hour floatation-resting environmental therapy improve heart rate variability compared to conventional napping in highly trained individuals?
In highly trained individuals, both floatation-REST and napping have minimal impact on acute autonomic function, though napping may be slightly more effective for short-term parasympathetic recovery.
Neither floatation-REST nor napping substantially enhances acute HRV in trained athletes; leaves open benefits from repeated or prolonged sessions.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Besson et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in highly trained individuals (n=20). Floatation-resting environmental therapy (FLO) vs. Conventional napping (NAP) was evaluated on Heart rate variability (HRV). A 1-hour floatation-REST therapy did not significantly differ from conventional napping in post-intervention heart rate variability, though napping enhanced supine parasympathetic activity (p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: