High Intensity Interval Grip (HIIG) Exercise Does Not Induce Post‐Exercise Hypotension in Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Handgrip has been used as an exercise stimulus to perturbate blood pressure over the long‐term (2‐16mmHg reduction) and short‐term (1‐3mmHg reduction). Majority of previous research has been completed using a commercial device (Zona) with a preset exercise protocol of 4x2min @ 30%MVC with 1min rest intervals. Acute exercise using ZONA modestly reduces SBP and increases HR shortly following exercise cessation in mixed samples of middle aged to older men and women. The purpose of this research was to compare the acute cardiovascular impact of Zona exercise to an in‐house accessible protocol of 32x5sec @ 100%MVC with 5sec rest intervals (High Intensity Interval Grip: HIIG) in older (age:57.7±5.2yrs), normotensive (109±9.4/73.1±7.8mmHg), post‐menopausal (8.4±5.6yrs) women. Nineteen women completed 5 laboratory visits; familiarization, baseline, and three randomly assigned experimental conditions: Zona, HIIG, and Control. For each experimental visit, resting SBP, DBP, and HR were made every 2min for 10mins, exercise was completed, and then post‐exercise SBP, DBP, and HR were made every 3min for 30mins. There were two calculations of post‐exercise hemodynamics; a 30min average change and a 6min rolling average change. There were no statistically significant changes from rest in the 30mins post‐exercise for all variables. As a description, based on 30min average change values Zona resulted in increased SBP (+1.6mmHg), increased DBP (+1.4mmHg), and reduced HR (‐2.1bpm) while HIIG resulted in slightly reduced SBP (‐0.2mmHg), slightly increased DBP (+0.2mmHg), and reduced HR (‐2.2bpm). The absence of BP reduction with either acute stimulus suggests cardiovascular regulation differs in this cohort of normotensive, post‐menopausal women. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CGS Doctoral Award.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".