Effects of isometric handgrip training on blood pressure (resting and 24 h ambulatory) and heart rate variability in medicated hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Isometric handgrip (IHG) training (four, 2-min sustained contractions at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction, three times per week for 8-10 weeks) lowers resting arterial blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients, including those receiving pharmacotherapy, although the mechanisms remain elusive. Ambulatory BP measurements are more efficacious in predicting cardiovascular disease-related events, yet the effects of IHG training on ambulatory BP are unknown. The objective of the current investigation was to test the hypotheses that 8 weeks of IHG training lowers resting and 24 h ambulatory BP concomitantly in medicated hypertensive patients, and may be the result of improved vagal modulation. METHODS: BP was assessed using brachial artery oscillometry, and coarse-graining spectral analysis was used to determine spectral power. Resting and 24 h ambulatory BP and heart rate variability (HRV) were measured pretraining, midtraining, and post-training in 11 medicated hypertensive patients (mean ± SD, resting BP: 113.9 ± 12.7/60.7 ± 11.6 mmHg), and in nine medicated hypertensive controls (resting BP: 117.8 ± 14.3/67.5 ± 4.2 mmHg). RESULTS: Indices of BP and HRV were not significantly altered with IHG training (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: IHG training does not lower resting or ambulatory BP in hypertensive patients successfully treated with pharmacotherapy to within the normal range (≤ 120/80 mmHg), nor does it improve HRV. Future studies should examine alternative IHG training protocols in well-managed hypertensive patients and/or target poorly controlled medicated hypertensive patients.
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".