Comparative Analysis of Blood Pressure Response to Isometric Handgrip Exercise - Mechanical vs. Computerized
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Heart Association recognizes isometric handgrip (IHG) training as a novel intervention to lower resting arterial blood pressure (BP). Computerized IHG devices that utilize dynamometer technology are predominantly used, however, due to the high cost of these devices, price may be a barrier to utilization. There is some evidence to suggest that training with a much less expensive mechanical IHG device may offer similar benefits. Despite this early support for the BP lowering effects of mechanical IHG devices, it is not clear how different the exercise stimulus is between the different IHG technologies. PURPOSE: to determine whether differences exist in BP response to an acute bout of IHG exercise between devices. METHODS: 8 young (26 ± 6 years), normotensive participants completed 4, 2 -minute unilateral IHG contractions using the non-dominant arm at 30% of their maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), with a 4 -minute rest period between contractions using either a computerized or mechanical IHG device. Resting BP was recorded in the dominant arm following 10 -minutes of seated rest using brachial artery oscillometry, and was recorded every minute throughout each bout. Bouts occurred in random order, with 30 -minutes of rest between bouts. BP response was quantified as the peak contraction BP minus resting BP and reported as BP change. Data were analyzed using a 2-way (device x contractions) ANOVA with repeated measures and are presented as means and (SD). RESULTS: A greater systolic BP response [28 (21) mmHg] and diastolic BP response [24 (9) mmHg] were observed using the mechanical IHG device verses the computerized IHG device [17 (15) mmHg and 17 (12) mmHg for systolic and diastolic BP response, respectively] (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between contractions for either systolic or diastolic BP within each bout (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that a mechanical device provides a greater BP response to an acute bout of IHG exercise than a computerized device. The importance of this difference is not entirely clear, but it is encouraging that a less expensive IHG device resulted in a positive BP response compared to traditional IHG training. Further investigations appear warranted in multiple populations, acutely, and in response to training interventions.
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) | 0.003 | 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".