Influence of hand dominance on peak forearm blood flow and cardiovascular responses to isometric handgrip exercise in recreationally active racquet players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if recreationally active racquet players (6.3 ± 2.4 years played) exhibit different responses to isometric handgrip exercise (IHG) between the dominant (D) and non‐dominant (ND) forearms than age‐, sex‐ and upper body aerobic fitness‐matched controls (n=8 per group). Two separate protocols were performed with each forearm: A) 5‐min of arterial occlusion (AO) combined with 1 min of IHG (15% max force), and B) 2‐min of IHG (40% max force) followed by 2‐min of AO. Forearm blood flow (FBF, plethysmography), heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP, Portapres ® ) data were recorded. Peak FBF was higher in both forearms (p<0.01) of the racquet players than controls (D; 21.2 ± 4.9 vs. 14.9 ± 4.5, ND; 20.2 ± 5.7 vs. 13.3 ± 2.8 ml/100ml/min). During protocol B, HR (D; 23.6 ± 11.7 vs. 15.1 ± 9.0, ND; 22.4 ± 11.9 vs. 12.6 ± 8.0 beats/min) and MAP (D; 128 ± 16 vs. 105 ± 17, ND; 123 ± 23 vs. 96 ± 21 mmHg) increased more during IHG in both limbs of the racquet players (all, p <0.05). MAP was also greater (p <0.05) during post‐exercise AO in both limbs of the racquet players (D; 112 ± 16 vs. 99 ± 13, ND; 111 ± 19 vs. 91 ± 13 mmHg). Compared to similar results from elite racquet sport players, differences in peak FBF, HR and MAP responses to IHG between groups were not isolated to the dominant forearm. These data suggest an absence of a localized training effect to the dominant forearm in recreationally active racquet players.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".