Effects of acute and chronic interval sprint exercise performed on a manually propelled treadmill on upper limb vascular mechanics in healthy young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interval sprint exercise performed on a manually propelled treadmill, where the hands grip the handle bars, engages lower and upper limb skeletal muscle, but little is known regarding the effects of this exercise modality on the upper limb vasculature. We tested the hypotheses that an acute bout of sprint exercise and 6 weeks of training induces brachial artery (BA) and forearm vascular remodeling, favoring a more compliant system. Before and following a single bout of exercise as well as 6 weeks of training three types of vascular properties/methodologies were examined in healthy men: (1) stiffness of the entire upper limb vascular system (pulse wave velocity (PWV); (2) local stiffness of the BA; and (3) properties of the entire forearm vascular bed (determined by a modified lumped parameter Windkessel model). Following sprint exercise, PWV declined (P < 0.01), indices of BA stiffness did not change (P ≥ 0.10), and forearm vascular bed compliance increased and inertance and viscoelasticity decreased (P ≤ 0.03). Following manually propelled treadmill training, PWV remained unchanged (P = 0.31), indices of BA stiffness increased (P ≤ 0.05) and forearm vascular bed viscoelasticity declined (P = 0.02), but resistance, compliance, and inertance remained unchanged (P ≥ 0.10) compared with pretraining values. Sprint exercise induced a more compliant forearm vascular bed, without altering indices of BA stiffness. These effects were transient, as following training the forearm vascular bed was not more compliant and indices of BA stiffness increased. On the basis of these data, we conclude that adaptations to acute and chronic sprint exercise on a manually propelled treadmill are not uniform along the arterial tree in upper limb.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".