Comparison of Heart-Rate and Blood-Pressure Increases during Isokinetic Eccentric versus Isometric Exercise in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors compared heart-rate and blood-pressure responses to typical isometric (ISO) and isokinetic (90 degrees /s) eccentric (ECC) resistance-training protocols in older adults. Twenty healthy older adults (74 +/- 5 years old) performed randomly ordered ISO and isokinetic ECC exercise (3 sets of 10 repetitions) at a target intensity of 100 % of their peak ISO torque value. Heart rate and systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures were recorded continuously, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) and rate-pressure product (RPP) were calculated. ECC peak torque (139 +/- 33 N. m) was significantly greater than ISO peak torque (115 +/- 26 N. m; p <.001). All variables increased significantly (p <.001) during both ISO and ECC exercise. Changes in SBP, DBP, MAP, and RPP were significantly greater during ISO exercise than during ECC exercise (p <.001). Clinically, an isokinetic ECC exercise program enables older adults to work at the same torque output with less cardiovascular stress than ISO exercise.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".