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

**Authors:** Murat Kasap, Gökhan Recep Aydin, Ozeas de Lima Lins-Filho, Ozeas de Lima Lins-Filho, Ozeas de Lima Lins-Filho

PMC · DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336615 · PLOS One · 2025-11-17

## TL;DR

This study compares box breathing and six breaths per minute to see which helps athletes recover better after high-intensity workouts.

## Contribution

The study provides new empirical evidence on the effects of specific breathing techniques on post-HIIT recovery in athletes.

## Key findings

- Six breaths per minute (6 bpm) led to lower heart rates and perceived exertion compared to box breathing.
- Box breathing showed a trend toward delayed heart rate recovery compared to 6 bpm.
- No significant difference in overall recovery time was found between the breathing strategies.

## 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.

## Full-text entities

- **Genes:** LINS1 (lines homolog 1) [NCBI Gene 55180] {aka LINS, MRT27, WINS1}
- **Diseases:** orthopedic disorders (MESH:D009140), Ozeas de Lima (MESH:D005862), hypercapnia (MESH:D006935), dyspnea (MESH:D004417), anxiety (MESH:D001007), injury (MESH:D014947), hypertensive (MESH:D006973)
- **Chemicals:** CO2 (MESH:D002245), cortisol (MESH:D006854), H2 (-)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12622787/full.md

## Figures

4 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12622787/full.md

## References

27 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12622787/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12622787