Stuck in Overdrive: How Constant Stress Physiology Changes the Ground a Tumor Grows In

Some stress is good for you. A near miss in traffic, a hard set at the gym, a difficult conversation you handle well. Your body floods with adrenaline, your blood vessels tighten, your heart speeds up, and then, within a few minutes, everything settles. That reset is the whole point. You were designed to spike and recover.

The trouble starts when a person never comes back down.

A recent paper in the EPMA Journal, written by an international team of physicians and researchers, gives that state a name: the sympathetic overdrive phenotype. Their argument is that when the “fight or flight” side of your nervous system stays permanently louder than the “rest and repair” side, it is not simply a stress complaint or a personality quirk. It is a measurable physical condition that changes blood flow, oxygen delivery, energy production, and immune function throughout the body. And they argue it matters in cancer.

For those of us who practice integrative and metabolic oncology, this feels familiar. We have long held that the environment surrounding a tumor shapes much of what it can do. This paper argues that the nervous system is one of the most overlooked forces shaping that environment.

I want to walk you through what the paper says, what I think holds up, and, just as important, what does not hold up yet. There is a real idea here. There is also more enthusiasm than evidence in places, and you deserve to know which is which.

Do you recognize this person?

The authors describe a profile that will sound uncomfortably familiar to many hard-working people.

These are usually driven, conscientious, success-oriented individuals who are highly sensitive to stress. They tend to have cold hands and feet. They feel cold in rooms where everyone else is comfortable. They often run on the low side for both body weight and blood pressure. Many are rarely thirsty and don’t drink much water through the day. Perfectionism is common. So are headaches, dizziness, ringing in the ears, trouble falling asleep, dry mouth, and cuts that take a long time to heal.

You may see a figure quoted that up to 70% of medical students fit this profile. I want to be careful with that number. It comes from a single study of a related pattern called Flammer syndrome, in one group of students, and the authors of this new paper openly admit that solid data on how common this phenotype really is do not yet exist. So treat 70% as a hint that this pattern is common in high-achieving groups, not as a measured statistic.

If you read that list and thought of yourself, keep reading. That recognition is useful, not alarming.

What overdrive does, step by step

Here is the chain of events the authors describe, in plain terms.

When the “fight or flight” nerves stay switched on, your smallest blood vessels stay partly squeezed shut. One of the main chemicals responsible is endothelin-1, one of the most powerful vessel-tightening compounds your body makes. When vessels stay tight, blood flow to tissue becomes uneven and unsteady. Some areas get plenty of oxygen. Others keep dipping in and out of oxygen shortage as flow sputters.

Those repeated dips are not harmless. Every time blood flow drops and then returns, the mitochondria (the tiny power plants inside your cells) release a burst of damaging molecules. Over years, that adds up to low-grade inflammation throughout the body, DNA damage, and progressive exhaustion of the power plants themselves. The authors call this mitochondrial burnout. Energy production falls, and the repair systems that depend on that energy fall with it. This is often why these patients describe a deep fatigue that predates any diagnosis by years.

Now picture a tumor growing in that setting. Tumors already build sloppy, leaky blood vessels, which creates patches of low oxygen inside them. Put that tumor into a body that is already running vessel-tight, and the oxygen shortage gets worse.

Low oxygen is a problem in cancer for reasons worth understanding. It flips on a master switch protein called HIF-1. HIF-1 tells the tumor to build more blood vessels, pushes cancer cells toward the mobile, invasive behavior linked with spreading, and makes both chemotherapy and radiation less effective. Radiation in particular needs oxygen in the tissue to work well.

Here’s what makes this so stubborn. HIF-1 tells the body to make more endothelin-1, and endothelin-1 in turn makes HIF-1 stronger and longer-lasting. Each one feeds the other. What started as a nervous system pattern turns into a self-sustaining loop inside the tumor.

The last piece is the immune system. This low-oxygen, tight-vessel environment physically walls the tumor off from your immune cells. The T cells that would otherwise attack cancer cannot get in, and the ones that do arrive find their fuel stripped away and the surrounding tissue turned acidic, which weakens them. Meanwhile, the suppressive cells that protect the tumor are recruited in greater numbers.

So a whole-body condition, something that would never show up on a scan, ends up helping decide whether your immune system and your treatments can reach their target.

This mechanical story is the strongest part of the paper. It is well documented, and it makes sense. What comes next is where I have to slow down.

What the research shows, and what it does not

The most consistent finding across cancer studies is not roaring stress activity. It is the loss of the calming side of the nervous system. Researchers measure that side through heart rate variability, the natural variation in the spacing between your heartbeats. More variation is generally better. It means your body can shift gears smoothly. People with cancer show lower heart rate variability than people without cancer, and patients with advanced disease show lower values than those with early-stage disease.

Some individual numbers stand out. When researchers pooled 657 patients across five cancer types, average heart rate variability was 22 ms compared with 50 ms in people without cancer. In brain tumor patients, lower resting variability was associated with shorter survival: 13.2 months compared with 20.2 months. In pancreatic cancer, reduced variability independently predicted mortality, 9 months compared with 15 months. In a study of 651 patients monitored over a full day, low variability predicted shorter survival even after accounting for age, stage, and functional status.

Resting heart rate carries its own signal. Among 548 patients who had not yet started treatment, every 5-beat increase in resting heart rate was associated with roughly 10% higher mortality.

Now the other side of the ledger, which matters just as much.

Two large colorectal cancer studies, one with 439 patients and one with 428, found no survival link with heart rate variability in early-stage, surgically treated disease. The signal shows up more reliably in advanced disease. The authors report that, so should I.

There is also a wrinkle inside the pooled data. The most recent analysis, covering 11 patient groups, found that one particular measure of variability (called SDNN) strongly predicted survival, while another measure (called RMSSD) did not reach statistical significance. That second number, RMSSD, is the one your fitness ring shows you every morning. I will come back to this, because it is the single most important practical point in this article.

And one more caution that comes from the paper itself, which I respect the authors for including. Calming-nerve signaling may not be uniformly good news in every tumor. There is evidence that acetylcholine, the chemical the calming nerve releases, may actually encourage tumor growth in certain settings, including colorectal cancer. So “more vagal tone is always better in cancer” is not something anyone has earned the right to say yet.

The honest part: this is a warning light, not a dial you turn

I want to put this plainly, because a lot of what you will read online gets it wrong.

Heart rate variability is a good predictor. People with lower values tend to do worse. That has been shown many times, in many cancers. But predicting something is not the same as causing it, and raising a number is not the same as changing the outcome that number predicts.

No clinical trial has ever shown that raising heart rate variability improves survival in cancer. Not one. The paper we are discussing does not claim otherwise. Read it closely, and you will notice that its entire framework is written as a proposal: a score to be validated, thresholds to be calibrated, hypotheses to be tested in future trials. The authors say directly that vagal-enhancing approaches, meaning biofeedback, exercise, medications, and nerve stimulators, “require rigorous oncology trials.” Those trials have not been done.

Medicine has been fooled by this exact pattern before, which is why I am so insistent about it.

In cardiology, a trial of nearly 20,000 patients tested a drug that lowers heart rate. It did what it was supposed to do to the number. It did not help patients, and in one group it appeared to cause harm. Two large trials of implanted devices that stimulate the calming nerve in heart failure achieved the intended nervous-system effect and still failed to improve survival or hospitalization. And in breast cancer specifically, a 2025 randomized trial tested exactly the breathing-with-biofeedback program that gets recommended for this purpose. Patients felt better in real ways, but the variability number itself did not improve significantly compared with the control group.

So what is this number good for? It is a useful mirror. It reflects how well you slept, how much you drank, how hard you trained, whether you are fighting something off, and how much load you are carrying. Those things matter to your health for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the number itself is causal. Watch the trend the way you would watch your weight or your blood pressure: as information, not as a target to chase.

What to actually track at home, and what it can tell you

The paper proposes a whole panel of office tests, including specialized blood work and imaging. Most of it belongs in a research setting for now. But one piece is already sitting on your finger or wrist, and it is worth using well.

Track two numbers, not one

The first is your overnight heart rate variability. The second is your overnight resting heart rate. Track both.

Why both? Because of that wrinkle I mentioned. The variability measurement your device reports is almost always RMSSD, and RMSSD is the measurement that did not reach significance in the most recent cancer analysis. The measurement that did carry the survival signal, SDNN, comes from a full clinical recording in a medical setting, and it is not the same quantity your ring produces overnight. Anyone who tells you that your Oura number can be compared to the survival thresholds in the medical literature is skipping over a real gap.

Your overnight resting heart rate does not have that problem. It is the most accurately measured number these devices produce, with an average error under 2% against a medical ECG, and it has a clean, independent signal in cancer patients. So use the two together. A stable or slowly rising variability trend paired with a low, stable overnight heart rate is reassuring. A slowly falling variability trend paired with a creeping overnight heart rate is the pattern worth watching.

Why the reading should come from your sleep

A morning spot check, taken sitting on the edge of the bed, is a single short sample of a very noisy signal. Your posture, your breathing, whether you already looked at your phone, all of it moves the number.

Sleep solves that problem for free. Overnight, you are still, lying down, fasted, and not reacting to anything, which is about as standardized as measurement gets outside a laboratory. Researchers have long favored nighttime recordings for exactly this reason, describing them as easier to obtain and more reproducible. Accuracy also improves the longer the window: a whole-night average is far more reliable than any five-minute slice of it.

Which device, and how much to trust it

A 2025 study put five consumer devices against a medical ECG across 536 nights. For overnight variability, the Oura ring came closest, followed by WHOOP with acceptable agreement, while Garmin and Polar wrist devices lagged further behind. For overnight resting heart rate, Oura again led.

Two things follow. First, ignore the more exotic readouts some apps display, such as the LF/HF ratio. They are unreliable on this kind of hardware. Second, never compare your absolute number to your spouse’s, to a friend’s, or to your own reading from a different brand. The devices don’t agree closely enough, and normal values vary enormously from person to person anyway. In published reference data, healthy adults span a range so wide that a fit 55-year-old and a stressed 25-year-old can produce the same value. Your only meaningful comparison is you, last month.

How to read it without fooling yourself

Give yourself 2-4 weeks of consistent nights before you decide your baseline. After that, look at the rolling average, not the nightly value. A single low night is almost always noise. What matters is a run of low nights that pulls the average down, or a slow drift over weeks.

One technical point that saves a lot of confusion: variability and heart rate are linked mathematically. Anything that slows your heart rate will tend to raise the variability number, whether or not your nervous system has actually improved. That is part of why you should read the two numbers together rather than one alone.

What throws the reading off

Alcohol is the big one, and the effect is unmistakable. In a study of 4,098 people across more than 12,000 nights, variability fell by roughly 2 ms after a low dose, 6 ms after a moderate dose, and 13 ms after a heavy night, with heart rate rising in step. Even one or two drinks produced a measurable effect. Careful laboratory sleep studies found the same thing.

Beyond alcohol, expect a late or large meal, an infection, hard evening exercise, dehydration, and a hot bedroom to all pull the number down temporarily. That is not failure. That is the measurement working.

If you take medication, your baseline is shifted

Several common medications change these numbers directly. Beta-blockers, for example, reliably raise heart rate variability. That has been shown repeatedly in heart patients. But much of the rise comes from the slower heart rate itself, and no study has shown that a medication-driven rise in this number improves a cancer outcome.

Practically: if you start or stop a beta-blocker, a blood pressure medication, a diabetes or weight medication, a steroid, or a pain medication, your numbers will shift for reasons that have nothing to do with your habits. Establish a fresh baseline on the medication and judge the trend from there. And never start or stop any of these on your own because of what a ring told you. That decision belongs to the physician managing your care.

One situation warrants a phone call rather than more effort. If you are receiving chemotherapy known to affect the heart, and your variability is drifting down while your resting heart rate climbs, tell your oncology team. Declining autonomic measures during treatment have been studied as an early warning of heart or nerve toxicity. That is a medical conversation, not a lifestyle adjustment.

When to stop looking

This deserves its own paragraph, because I am asking you to watch a number every day, and for some people that becomes its own problem.

A documented pattern is that people become so focused on optimizing their sleep and recovery scores that the tracking itself makes them anxious and worsens their sleep. If you find yourself checking the app before you are fully awake, dreading the score, or letting a low reading set the tone of your day, that is your signal to put the device in a drawer for a month. Nothing in this article is worth that trade. Remember the profile at the top of this piece: the perfectionist, the high achiever, the person who cannot come down. That person is exactly the one most likely to turn a helpful number into one more thing to be graded on.

Infographic placement: “Stuck in Overdrive: How Chronic Stress Fuels Cancer” panel goes here in the published version.

The stress hormone side of the same system

Overdrive runs on two tracks. The nerves act in seconds through adrenaline, which is what heart rate variability measures. The second track is slower and hormonal, ending in cortisol. The calming nerve appears to act as a brake on the cortisol side, and when that brake is weak, the stress hormone response is slower to shut itself off.

In healthy men put through a standardized stress test, low resting variability predicted poorer recovery afterward, not only of blood pressure and heart rate but of hormone and immune markers as well. Measured at rest, higher cortisol has been linked with lower calming-nerve activity.

What matters in cancer is not how high cortisol runs but the shape of its daily curve. Cortisol is designed to peak in the early morning and fall to a low point at night. In 104 women with metastatic breast cancer, a flattened daily curve predicted earlier mortality independent of other factors, and flatter curves came with weaker natural killer cell activity. Researchers later repeated that finding in 62 lung cancer patients.

Like everything else here, this is an association, not proof of cause. But it points somewhere useful, and it points at the bedroom. In 99 women with metastatic breast cancer, longer nighttime awake periods went along with a flatter cortisol curve and weaker calming-nerve regulation. Sleep, the cortisol rhythm, and nerve tone form one triangle. The good news is that the same habits improve all three.

The things worth doing no matter what

Here is what I find most encouraging. The measures with the strongest evidence are things you should be doing anyway, at low cost and low risk. And unlike the number itself, several of these have been shown to improve how people actually feel and function.

Aerobic exercise is the strongest, by a wide margin. It is the only intervention with repeated, high-quality evidence of improving these measurements, and the only one tested directly in cancer patients and survivors, where pooled results showed a meaningful improvement. In one 16-week study in cancer patients, moderate aerobic training raised heart rate variability while the untrained group declined. Aerobic exercise also lowers endothelin-1, the vessel-tightening chemical at the center of this whole story, by roughly 20% over about three months. Aim for at least 150 minutes a week at a conversational pace, the intensity where you can still speak in full sentences, and add harder intervals only if your treatment team clears it. Expect 4-12 weeks before an overnight trend moves. Also know that too much hard training pushes the number the wrong way, so if yours is falling while your training is climbing, back off rather than push.

Sleep regularity is second. Consistent bed and wake times, your last meal about three hours before sleep, dimmer light in the last couple of hours of the evening, and 10-15 minutes of outdoor light within an hour of waking. Simple, free, and it moves both the nerve side and the cortisol side.

Less alcohol. This is the fastest visible change of anything on this list. You will see it on your device the very same night.

Slow, paced breathing. About 6 breaths per minute, meaning a five-second inhale and a five-second exhale, for 15-20 minutes a day. I want to be accurate about what this does. The effect is large while you are doing it and much smaller between sessions, which is exactly why it is a daily practice rather than a one-time fix. Think of it as a skill for managing stress in the moment, which is worth having on its own terms, rather than as a way to permanently reset your baseline.

Treat sleep apnea if you have it. Untreated apnea stresses the nervous system night after night, and severe apnea with low nighttime oxygen has been linked with poorer survival and higher risk of progression in cancer patients, independent of stage and treatment. Be aware that CPAP’s effect on heart rate variability specifically has been inconsistent in pooled analyses. Treat the apnea because apnea is worth treating, not because of what it may or may not do to a number.

Stop smoking, and drink water on a schedule. If you are one of the people who is never thirsty, your thirst signal is unreliable, and you are probably under-hydrated. Drink on a clock instead of waiting for a sensation.

Mind and mood care. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioral therapy improve sleep, mood, fatigue, and quality of life in cancer survivors, and those benefits are real and worth having. In pooled analysis they have not been shown to reliably raise heart rate variability itself. Both things can be true. Do them for how you feel, not for the score.

Where the evidence runs out

Patients ask me constantly what supplement raises this number. I have looked hard at this, and the honest answer is: none of them have earned a place on a list like this.

Fish oil is the most studied. Pooled trial data show it raises one specific vagal measurement while leaving the two main measurements, including the one your device shows, essentially unchanged. Magnesium, vitamin B12, and vitamin D are worth correcting if you are actually low, because deficiency correction is repair rather than stimulation, but there is little reason to expect benefit if your levels are normal. The herbal adaptogens marketed for stress and nerve tone do not have human trial data strong enough for me to recommend them for this purpose.

One more caution. If you are in active treatment, clear any supplement with your oncology team first. Several antioxidants marketed for stress and energy could, in principle, work against treatments designed to generate oxidative stress in tumor cells, and others can affect how your body handles chemotherapy drugs.

Infographic placement: “What Actually Moves the Number” panel goes here in the published version.

The bigger picture

What I appreciate about this work is that it treats the body as one connected system rather than separate departments. The nervous system, blood vessels, mitochondria, and immune system are not independent. They are one design, and a disturbance in one ripples through all of them. Scripture describes us as fearfully and wonderfully made, and the deeper research goes into these interlocking systems, the more it reads like a technical description rather than a poetic one.

It also validates something patients often sense but are told to dismiss. When someone says the stress in their life feels like it is doing physical harm, they are not exaggerating. Tightened vessels, repeated oxygen shortage, exhausted mitochondria, and a walled-off immune system are the mechanisms by which that harm happens.

So the right response is not to be told that stress does not cause cancer. Nor is it to be handed a number and told to make it go up. The right response is to take the load on your nervous system seriously, change what’s within reach, and use a home measurement as one honest mirror among several.

Move your body most days. Protect your sleep. Drink water. Drink less alcohol. Breathe slowly when the day gets loud. Treat your apnea. None of that requires a prescription; all of it is good for you whether or not the number cooperates, and you do not have to wait for a trial to be published before you start.

If you would like to know where your own terrain stands more broadly, start with a comprehensive metabolic and vascular panel: click here. The standard workup was never built to answer these questions.

References

1. Almoznino-Sarafian D, Sarafian G, Berman S, Shteinshnaider M, Tzur I, Cohen N, Gorelik O. Magnesium administration may improve heart rate variability in patients with heart failure. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;19(9):641-5.
2. Anker MS, Frey MK, Goliasch G, Bartko PE, Prausmuller S, Gisslinger H, et al. Increased resting heart rate and prognosis in treatment-naive unselected cancer patients: results from a prospective observational study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22:1230-8.
3. Atar O, Ram R, Avivi I, Amit O, Vitkon R, Luttwak E, Bar-On Y, Gidron Y. Vagal nerve activity predicts prognosis in diffused large B-cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):908.
4. Binici Z, Mouridsen MR, Kober L, Sajadieh A. Decreased nighttime heart rate variability is associated with increased stroke risk. Stroke. 2011;42(11):3196-201.
5. Brown L, Rando AA, Eichel K, et al. The effects of mindfulness and meditation on vagally mediated heart rate variability: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med. 2021;83(6):631-40.
6. Cao R, Azimi I, Sarhaddi F, et al. Accuracy assessment of Oura Ring nocturnal heart rate and heart rate variability in comparison with electrocardiography in time and frequency domains: comprehensive analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1):e27487.
7. Crosswell AD, Lockwood KG, Ganz PA, Bower JE. Low heart rate variability and cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer survivors. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014;45:58-66.
8. De Couck M, Gidron Y. Norms of vagal nerve activity, indexed by heart rate variability, in cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013;37(5):737-41.
9. De Couck M, Marechal R, Moorthamers S, Van Laethem JL, Gidron Y. Vagal nerve activity predicts overall survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer, mediated by inflammation. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;40:47-51.
10. Dekker JM, Crow RS, Folsom AR, Hannan PJ, Liao D, Swenne CA, Schouten EG. Low heart rate variability in a 2-minute rhythm strip predicts risk of coronary heart disease and mortality from several causes: the ARIC Study. Circulation. 2000;102(11):1239-44.
11. de Zambotti M, Forouzanfar M, Javitz H, Goldstone A, Claudatos S, Alschuler V, Baker FC, Colrain IM. Impact of evening alcohol consumption on nocturnal autonomic and cardiovascular function in adult men and women: a dose-response laboratory investigation. Sleep. 2021;44(1):zsaa135.
12. Dial MB, Malek EM, Neyroud D, et al. Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables. Physiol Rep. 2025;13(16):e70527.
13. Dissanayake HU, Bin YS, Sutherland K, Ucak S, de Chazal P, Cistulli PA. The effect of obstructive sleep apnea therapy on cardiovascular autonomic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep. 2022;45:zsac210.
14. Dolgilevica K, Grunfeld E, Derakshan N. Heart rate variability biofeedback training can improve menopausal symptoms and psychological well-being in women with a diagnosis of primary breast cancer: a longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Curr Oncol. 2025;32(3):150.
15. Ferreira PM, Carvalho I, Redondo M, van Zeller M, Drummond M. The role of obstructive sleep apnea and nocturnal hypoxia as predictors of mortality in cancer patients. Sleep Med. 2024;121:258-65.
16. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tardif JC, Tendera M, Ferrari R. Ivabradine in stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1091-9.
17. Gidron Y, Katan N, Mansour N, Grossman R. The prognostic and protective roles of heart-rate variability in glioblastoma: making GBM less vague. J Neurooncol. 2025;174:219-25.
18. Giese-Davis J, Wilhelm FH, Tamagawa R, Palesh O, Neri E, Taylor CB, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. Higher vagal activity as related to survival in patients with advanced breast cancer: an analysis of autonomic dysregulation. Psychosom Med. 2015;77(4):346-55.
19. Gold MR, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Hauptman PJ, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of heart failure: the INOVATE-HF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(2):149-58.
20. Guo Y, Koshy S, Hui D, Palmer JL, Shin K, Bozkurt M, Yusuf SW. Prognostic value of heart rate variability in patients with cancer. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;32(6):516-20.
21. Huang WB, Lai HZ, Long J, Ma Q, Fu X, You FM, Xiao C. Vagal nerve activity and cancer prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2025;25:579.
22. Jahrami H, Trabelsi K, Husain W, Ammar A, BaHammam AS, Pandi-Perumal SR, Saif Z, Vitiello MV. Prevalence of orthosomnia in a general population sample: a cross-sectional study. Brain Sci. 2024;14(11):1123.
23. Jouven X, Escolano S, Celermajer D, Empana JP, Bingham A, Hermine O, et al. Heart rate and risk of cancer death in healthy men. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e21310.
24. Kloter E, Barrueto K, Klein SD, Scholkmann F, Wolf U. Heart rate variability as a prognostic factor for cancer survival: a systematic review. Front Physiol. 2018;9:623.
25. Kubatka P, Kapinova A, Bojkova B, Joseph V, Hornak S, Kajo K, et al. From sympathetic overdrive phenotype to malignant transformation: 3PM-guided protection against health-to-disease transition and disease progression improving individual outcomes in primary and secondary care. EPMA J. 2026;17:205-32.
26. Kunin A, Polivka J, Moiseeva N, Golubnitschaja O. Dry mouth and Flammer syndromes: neglected risks in adolescents and new concepts by predictive, preventive and personalised approach. EPMA J. 2018;9:307-17.
27. Laborde S, Allen MS, Borges U, Dosseville F, Hosang TJ, Iskra M, Mosley E, Salvotti C, Spolverato L, Zammit N, Javelle F. Effects of voluntary slow breathing on heart rate and heart rate variability: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;138:104711.
28. Lampert R, Ickovics JR, Viscoli CJ, Horwitz RI, Lee FA. Effects of propranolol on recovery of heart rate variability following acute myocardial infarction and relation to outcome in the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(2):137-42.
29. Lavin-Perez AM, Collado-Mateo D, Mayo X, Liguori G, Humphreys L, Jimenez A. Can exercise reduce the autonomic dysfunction of patients with cancer and its survivors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2021;12:712823.
30. Maeda S, Tanabe T, Miyauchi T, Otsuki T, Sugawara J, Iemitsu M, et al. Aerobic exercise training reduces plasma endothelin-1 concentration in older women. J Appl Physiol. 2003;95:336-41.
31. Mazgelyte E, Chomentauskas G, Dereskeviciute E, Rekiene V, Jakaitiene A, Petrenas T, Songailiene J, Utkus A, Kucinskiene ZA, Karciauskaite D. Association of salivary steroid hormones and their ratios with time-domain heart rate variability indices in healthy individuals. J Med Biochem. 2021;40(2):173-80.
32. McGovern J, Leadbitter S, Miller G, Hounat A, Kamande I, Dolan RD, et al. The relationship between heart rate variability and TNM stage, co-morbidity, systemic inflammation and survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. 2023;13:8157.
33. Monfredi O, Lyashkov AE, Johnsen AB, et al. Biophysical characterization of the underappreciated and important relationship between heart rate variability and heart rate. Hypertension. 2014;64(6):1334-43.
34. Niederer D, Vogt L, Thiel C, Schmidt K, Bernhorster M, Lungwitz A, et al. Exercise effects on HRV in cancer patients. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34:68-73.
35. Niemela MJ, Airaksinen KE, Huikuri HV. Effect of beta-blockade on heart rate variability in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23(6):1370-7.
36. Nunan D, Sandercock GRH, Brodie DA. A quantitative systematic review of normal values for short-term heart rate variability in healthy adults. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33(11):1407-17.
37. Palesh O, Zeitzer JM, Conrad A, Giese-Davis J, Mustian KM, Popek V, Nga K, Spiegel D. Vagal regulation, cortisol, and sleep disruption in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Sleep Med. 2008;4(5):441-9.
38. Petrescu M, Udristoiu I, Militaru F, Petrescu AR, Tartea G, Raicea V, et al. The assessment of heart rate variability in patients with pancreatic cancer. Curr Health Sci J. 2023;49:172-8.
39. Pietila J, Helander E, Korhonen I, Myllymaki T, Kujala UM, Lindholm H. Acute effect of alcohol intake on cardiovascular autonomic regulation during the first hours of sleep in a large real-world sample of Finnish employees: observational study. JMIR Ment Health. 2018;5(1):e23.
40. Saleem S, Khandoker AH, Alkhodari M, Hadjileontiadis LJ, Jelinek HF. Investigating the effects of beta-blockers on circadian heart rhythm using heart rate variability in ischemic heart disease with preserved ejection fraction. Sci Rep. 2023;13:5828.
41. Sephton SE, Lush E, Dedert EA, Floyd AR, Rebholz WN, Dhabhar FS, Spiegel D, Salmon P. Diurnal cortisol rhythm as a predictor of lung cancer survival. Brain Behav Immun. 2013;30 Suppl:S163-70.
42. Sephton SE, Sapolsky RM, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. Diurnal cortisol rhythm as a predictor of breast cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(12):994-1000.
43. Shih CH, Chou PC, Chen JH, Chou TL, Lai JH, Lu CY, et al. Cancer-related fatigue classification based on heart rate variability signals from wearables. Front Med. 2023;10:1103979.
44. Strous MTA, Daniels AM, Zimmermann FM, van Erning FN, Gidron Y, Vogelaar FJ. Is pre-operative heart rate variability a prognostic indicator for overall survival and cancer recurrence in patients with primary colorectal cancer? PLoS One. 2020;15:e0237244.
45. Weber CS, Thayer JF, Rudat M, Wirtz PH, Zimmermann-Viehoff F, Thomas A, Perschel FH, Arck PC, Deter HC. Low vagal tone is associated with impaired post stress recovery of cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune markers. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;109(2):201-11.
46. Xin W, Wei W, Li XY. Short-term effects of fish-oil supplementation on heart rate variability in humans: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(5):926-35.
47. Zhao Y, Chen P, Zhang Y, Huo S, Yu D, Zeng X, Zhang W. Heart rate variability and its modulation by nutrients: a narrative review on implications for cardiovascular aging. Front Neurosci. 2025;19:1654796.
48. Zhou H, Shi B, Jia Y, Qiu G, Yang W, Li J, et al. Expression and significance of autonomic nerves and alpha-9 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in colorectal cancer. Mol Med Rep. 2018;17:8423-31.
49. Zhou X, Ma Z, Zhang L, et al. Heart rate variability in the prediction of survival in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2016;89:20-5.