CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSES TO MAXIMAL ISOKINETIC EXERCISE IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance exercise may counteract the sarcopenia associated with aging. The safety considerations of such exercise have not been fully determined. Previously, we have investigated cardiovascular responses to submaximal isokinetic resistance exercise. The purpose of the current study was to compare heart rate and blood pressure responses to maximal, typical isokinetic eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) resistance exercise protocols in healthy active older adults. In random order, subjects (n = 20, 74 ± 7y, 10 males) performed maximal ECC and CON isokinetic knee extension exercise (90° 3×10 reps, 5s rep rest, 2 min set rest). Heart rate (HR), and systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures were measured continuously and recorded every 15 seconds (Finapres). Mean arterial blood pressure [MAP; DBP+1/3(SBP-DBP)] and rate-pressure product (RPP; HRxSBP/100) were calculated. Mean ECC exercise torque (90 Nm) was significantly (p < .001) greater than mean CON exercise torque (59 Nm). HR, MAP, and RPP increased significantly (p < .001) in each set of ECC and CON exercise. Maximal CON exercise elicited greater (p < .01) increases in MAP and RPP than maximal ECC exercise despite the fact that ECC exercise was performed at a significantly greater torque output than CON exercise. These results may have implications for isokinetic training and rehabilitation programs for older adults.
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) | 0.000 | 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".