Effects of manual resistance training and free weight resistance training on postexercise blood pressure in hypertensive men: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manual resistance training (MRT) is a low cost and practically applicable alternative form of resistance training that is ideal for weight rooms with limited equipment. The aim of this study was to compare the acute and subacute hemodynamic responses between MRT and free weight resistance training (FWRT) in normotensive (NT) and hypertensive (HT) men. METHODS: Twenty-six untrained men performed a single bout of MRT and FWRT with a minimum 72-hour rest in between. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP) were measured, and double product (DP) was calculated. Variables were assessed at different time points: SBP, DBP and MBP (pre- and 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes postexercise); DP (half-time and postintervention). RESULTS: The blood pressure values (BP) were greater in HT men in all analyses and interventions. BP responses were similar between MRT and FWRT in both groups of men. In HT men, there was postexercise hypotension (PEH) after 15, 30 and 60 minutes in MBP measured for both interventions. The DP was greater for the MRT intervention, but within the cardiovascular safety limits. CONCLUSIONS: MRT induces PEH in similar levels to FWRT in HT men. Therefore, MRT is a viable and safe alternative for application of FWRT in NT and HT men, reducing the need for expensive equipment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".