Effects of resuming endurance training on arterial stiffness and nitric oxide production during exercise in elite cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise training improves arterial compliance due to increases in blood flow to skeletal muscle during repeated bouts of daily exercise. The effect of resuming training on arterial stiffness in previously well-trained subjects is poorly documented. Hence, the purpose of this study was to determine the vascular effects induced by return to exercise in highly trained cyclists. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), an index of arterial stiffness, was assessed at rest and during constant moderate-intensity cycle exercises before and after 16 weeks of endurance training. The impact of daily exercise on the concentration of nitric oxide (NO) measured as nitrate in plasma was examined at rest and during maximal exercise before and after the training period. At rest, PWV was significantly lower in the subjects after a training session (6.4 +/- 0.4 vs. 8.1 +/- 0.4 m x s(-1), p < 0.05). During constant exercise, PWV was significantly and positively correlated with increases in blood pressure. The increased PWV induced by exercise was, however, significantly lower after training (9.8 +/- 0.6 vs. 11.4 +/- 0.6 m x s(-1), p < 0.05). After the training program, nitrate plasma levels at rest were higher. During the maximal test, the plasma nitrate concentration was increased in the subjects studied before the training period, but not after. These results show that resumption of chronic endurance training rapidly induces adaptive changes in arterial stiffness and NO release that may contribute to improved physical fitness in athletes.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".