Effects of long-term lifestyle and high-intensity interval training intervention on blood pressure reduction in patients with abdominal obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aims of this study were: 1) to study the impact of a combined long-term lifestyle and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) intervention on blood pressure (BP) in patients with abdominal obesity; 2) To document BP reduction responses according to the European Society of Hypertension BP classification. Methods: 105 patients with abdominal obesity (age: 53±10 yrs; 32 men; waist circumference (WC): 112±13cm; systolic/diastolic (SBP/DBP): 133±13/82±8 mmHg; 11% diabetics, 11% smokers, 68% with antihypertensive therapy) were retrospectively analyzed before and after a combined long-term lifestyle and HIIT program twice a week. Anthropometric measurements, cardiometabolic risk factors, and resting BP (5min. of supine rest, using a manual sphygmomanometer) were assessed at baseline and after 9 months of program. Results: After 9 months, we observed an improvement in weight (-4.83kg), BMI (-1.75 kg/m2), WC (-6.62 cm), an average SBP/DBP decrease of -5.59/-3.31 mmHg. These changes were not uniform, 74 patients decreased their BP (1 mmHg or more) reaching -11.69/-6.92 mmHg. The parameter which differentiated them to those who did not improve their BP was their higher initial BP level (SBP: 135±14 vs. 126±10 mmHg, P=0.001; DBP 84±7 vs. 77±3 mmHg, P<0.0001). Thus, we compared following groups in accord to their baseline ESH-BP-classification: 1/ "optimal" [BP <120/80 mmHg] + "normal" [120/80 ≤ BP < 130/85 mmHg] (n=13) vs. 2/ "high normal" [130/85 ≤BP < 140/90 mmHg] + "stage 1 hypertension" [140/90 ≤ BP < 160/100 mmHg] (n=92). We observed no significant difference between groups 1/ vs. 2/ in terms of gender (P=0.2), age (50±9 vs. 54±10 yrs, P=0.2), resting heart rate (72±15 vs. 75±12 bpm, P=0.3), diabetes, lipid analysis, weight loss (-3.75±4.49 vs. -4.99±5.67 kg, P=0.4), WC improvement (-5.95±3.49 vs. -6.72±11.70 cm, P=0.8). Antihypertensive therapies were at baseline less present in group 1/ than in group 2/ (38% vs. 72%, P=0.02). Furthermore, BP was not improved in group 1/ (+1.85/+4.92 mmHg) but decreased in group 2/ (-6.64/-4.48 mmHg) (P=0.04 and P=0.0003 respectively for SBP/DBP). Conclusion: A long-term lifestyle and high-intensity interval training intervention had a beneficial effect on BP levels in patients with abdominal obesity and a baseline BP ≥130/85 mmHg. This helped them to bring back to "normal" BP values.
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".