Sex‐differences in the effects of isometric handgrip training on resting blood pressure and resistance vessel function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isometric handgrip (IHG) training lowers resting blood pressure (BP) in normotensive and hypertensive populations, yet potential sex‐differences and mechanisms associated with the hypotensive response remain unclear. We studied, in normotensives, sex‐differences in the effects of IHG training on resting BP and resistance vessel function (RVF), a hypothesized mechanism of post‐training BP reduction. Resting BP (brachial artery oscillometry) and RVF (venous strain gauge plethysmography with reactive hyperaemia) were assessed in 12 females (23 ± 4 yrs; mean ± SD) and 9 males (21 ± 2 yrs), pre‐ and post‐ 8 wks of IHG training (Four, 2 min unilateral contractions at 30% of maximal effort, 3 d•wk −1 ). IHG training reduced resting systolic BP in both females and males (Females: 94 ± 6 to 88 ± 5 mmHg; Males: 105 ± 10 to 96 ± 7 mmHg, all P < 0.05), but the magnitude of BP reduction was similar between sexes ( P >; 0.05). Diastolic BP remained unchanged in both females and males (Females: 57 ± 7 to 54 ± 6 mmHg; Males: 57 ± 5 to 56 ± 5 mmHg, all P >; 0.05). In each sex, systolic BP reductions occurred concomitant to increases in forearm reactive hyperaemic blood flow (Females: 26 ± 7 to 36 ± 9 mL•min −1 •100 mL −1 ; Males: 35 ± 11 to 38 ± 13 mL•min −1 •100 mL −1 , all P < 0.05). In conclusion, IHG training effectively lowers resting BP in both females and males, and improved RVF may mediate the post‐training BP response in both sexes. Supported by University of Windsor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".