Effect of whole body resistance training on arterial compliance in young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of resistance training on arterial stiffening is controversial. We tested the hypothesis that resistance training would not alter central arterial compliance. Young healthy men (age, 23 +/- 3.9 (mean +/- s.e.m.) years; n = 28,) were whole-body resistance trained five times a week for 12 weeks, using a rotating 3-day split-body routine. Resting brachial blood pressure (BP), carotid pulse pressure, carotid cross-sectional compliance (CSC), carotid initima-media thickness (IMT) and left ventricular dimensions were evaluated before beginning exercise (PRE), after 6 weeks of exercise (MID) and at the end of 12 weeks of exercise (POST). CSC was measured using the pressure-sonography method. Results indicate reductions in brachial (61.1 +/- 1.4 versus 57.6 +/- 1.2 mmHg; P < 0.01) and carotid pulse pressure (52.2 +/- 1.9 versus 46.8 +/- 2.0 mmHg; P < 0.01) PRE to POST. In contrast, carotid CSC, beta-stiffness index, IMT and cardiac dimensions were unchanged. In young men, central arterial compliance is unaltered with 12 weeks of resistance training and the mechanisms responsible for cardiac hypertrophy and reduced arterial compliance are either not inherent to all resistance-training programmes or may require a prolonged stimulus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".