Endothelium-dependent Vasodilation And Baroreflex Sensitivity In Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although swimming is widely promoted and recommended as a mode of aerobic exercise by national and international organizations, research focusing on the influences of swimming on vascular disease risks is lacking. No study has addressed whether swimming is equally efficacious to land-based exercises in enhancing vascular function. PURPOSE: To determine whether swimmers would demonstrate greater levels of arterial baroreflex sensitivity and endothelial-dependent vasodilation than sedentary controls and if the levels of such vascular measures are different from runners who are matched for age and exercise training status. METHODS: A total of 75 apparently healthy adults aged 35-75 yrs were studied: 25 swimmers (age 56±2 yr), 25 runners (52±2 yr), and 25 sedentary controls (54±2 yrs). Cardiovagal BRS was determined using Valsalva's maneuver, and brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was used as an index of endothelium-dependent vasodilation. RESULTS: There were no group differences in age, height, dietary intake, mean blood pressure, and fasting plasma concentrations of glucose, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Cardiovagal BRS was greater (P<0.05) in runners than in sedentary controls and swimmers (12.2±1.5 vs. 6.7±1.4 vs. 10.8±1.6 ms/mmHg). Cardiovagal BRS of swimmers was 25% higher than sedentary controls. FMD was significant greater (P<0.05) in runners (8.2±1.3%) compared with sedentary controls (4.3±1.3%) and swimmers (3.8±1.3%). Peak blood flow and the calculated shear rate were not different among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Swimmers do not appear to demonstrate similar phenotypes in endothelium-dependent vasodilation and cardiovascular BRS typically observed in runners. Supported by AHA grant GRNT2010136.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".