Reductions in ambulatory blood pressure in young normotensive men and women after isometric resistance training and its relationship with cardiovascular reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been very little published work exploring the comparative effects of isometric resistance training (IRT) on blood pressure (BP) in men and women. Most of the previously published work has involved men and used resting BP as the primary outcome variable. Early evidence suggests that IRT is particularly effective in older women and has a positive influence on ambulatory BP, a better predictor of disease risk. OBJECTIVES: With the WHO now placing global emphasis on the primary prevention of hypertension, the goals of this proof-of-concept study were to (i) examine whether sex differences exist in the ambulatory BP-lowering effects of IRT in young, normotensive men and women and (ii) determine whether these reductions can be predicted by simple laboratory stress tasks (a 2-min sustained isometric contraction and a math task involving subtracting a two-digit number from a series of numbers). RESULTS: There were no differences in the IRT-induced reductions in 24-h (men: Δ4 mmHg, women: Δ4 mmHg), daytime (men: Δ3 mmHg, women: Δ4 mmHg), or night-time (men: Δ4 mmHg, women: Δ3 mmHg) ambulatory BP in men (n=13) and women (n=11) (P<0.05) and these changes were not associated with systolic BP reactivity to either stress task (all P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that lower ambulatory BP can be achieved, to a similar magnitude in young healthy women as well as men, with IRT; however, the BP-lowering effectiveness cannot be predicted by systolic BP reactivity. Taken together, this work heralds a potentially novel approach to the primary prevention of hypertension in both men and women and warrants further investigation in a larger clinical outcome trial.
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) | 0.002 | 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".