Effects of Mild Exercise on Insulin Sensitivity in Hypertensive Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise increases insulin sensitivity in conditions associated with insulin resistance, such as obesity and diabetes, but little is known in this regard in hypertension. Whether postexercise changes in hemodynamics and/or changes in insulin-induced vasodilatation could contribute to a postexercise increase in insulin sensitivity in hypertensive subjects is unknown. We investigated the effects of acute physical exercise on insulin sensitivity in 10 hypertensive and 10 normotensive subjects during a control evaluation (CTRL), during lower body negative pressure (LBNP), after 30 minutes of mild bicycle exercise (POSTEX), and during LBNP after exercise (POSTEX+LBNP). Insulin-induced vasodilatation was assessed from peak forearm blood flow during the intravenous glucose tolerance test. Cardiac output (4.9+/-0.3 versus 5.3+/-0.4 L/min, mean+/-SEM) and insulin sensitivity (the glucose disappearance rate over insulin area under the curve: 0.91+/-0.07 versus 1.38+/-0.25 min(-1)/[pmol. L(-1)]. minute) were lower (both P<0.05) in hypertensive than in normotensive subjects, respectively. Cardiac output decreased during LBNP, increased during POSTEX, and was similar to control during POSTEX+LBNP in both groups. Insulin sensitivity was unchanged during LBNP, increased during POSTEX, and remained elevated during POSTEX+LBNP in hypertensive subjects, whereas it remained unchanged in normotensives. Peak forearm blood flow was significantly lower in hypertensive than in normotensive subjects, despite higher insulin levels in hypertensives, and was not modified by LBNP or exercise. In conclusion, insulin sensitivity increases after exercise in hypertensive subjects, and the increase in cardiac output does not contribute to this effect. Endogenous insulin-induced vasodilatation is reduced in hypertensive subjects, and this insulin action is not affected by physical 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".