Exercise Training in Women with Heart Disease: Influence of Hormone Replacement Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the central and peripheral cardiovascular effects of exercise training in postmenopausal women with CAD with and without hormone replacement therapy (HRT and N-HRT). METHODS: Thirty-eight female cardiac patients referred for cardiac rehabilitation were divided into HRT ( N= 18) or N-HRT (N = 20) groups. Peak oxygen uptake (VO2) peak and ventilatory anaerobic thresholds (AT) were determined, in addition to submaximal cardiac output (Q). Peripheral measures of resting and peak ischemic blood flows (BF) were also measured. Measurements were all repeated after 12 and 26 wk of exercise training consisting of 1 h of walking at 75-80% of the measured VO2peak at baseline (T1) for 5 d.wk(-1). RESULTS: VO2peak mL.kg(-1).min(-1) at baseline (14.9 +/- 0.4) increased by 5% after 12 wk (15.6 +/- 0.4) and significantly by 15% (17.2 +/- 0.5) after 26 wk of exercise training (P < 0.001). The HRT group was significantly younger than the N-HRT group (58 vs 65 yr; P < 0.01) and had significantly higher VO2peaks at baseline (15.7 vs 14.2 mL.kg(-1).min(-1); P < 0.05), yet either did not influence changes in other variables. At fixed submaximal work rates, there was a significant training bradycardia ( P < 0.01), but insignificant changes in Q or stroke volume regardless of HRT status. Resting and peak ischemic calf BF and vascular conductance increased significantly ( P < 0.001) at 12 and 26 wk, with no difference found according to HRT status. CONCLUSIONS: The cardiovascular responses to training in postmenopausal women with CAD appear to be consistent regardless of HRT status and dominated by peripheral adaptations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".