Box breathing or six breaths per minute: Which strategy improves athletes post-HIIT cardiovascular recovery?

Murat Kasap and Gökhan Recep Aydin

PLOS ONE, 2025, vol. 20, issue 11, 1-12

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

Date: 2025
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336615 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 36615&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0336615

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336615

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().