Arterial Stiffness Is Reduced Regardless of Resistance Training Load in Young Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Discrepancies regarding the effect of resistance exercise training (RET) on arterial stiffness have led to uncertainty regarding the effect of RET on cardiovascular health. Confounding our understanding in this area are the roles of the following: load (heavier vs lighter), participant cardiovascular health, and arterial stiffness assessment method. We aimed to investigate the effects of a heavier versus a lighter load resistance training protocol on both central and local arterial stiffness in previously trained young men. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to a 12-wk supervised whole-body RET program consisting of three sets of 8-12 repetitions (heavier-load, lower-repetition [LR]; n = 16) or three sets of 20-25 repetitions (lighter-load, higher-repetition [HR]; n = 16) to volitional failure, or a control group who maintained their regular activity habits (n = 14). Central arterial stiffness (carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity), local arterial stiffness (common carotid arterial distensibility), and left ventricular mass were measured before and after 12 wk of RET. RESULTS: There was a reduction in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in both LR (6.24 ± 0.56 vs 5.77 ± 0.76 m·s; P < 0.05) and HR (6.42 ± 0.70 vs 5.72 ± 0.60 m·s; P < 0.05) with no changes in carotid distensibility (P = 0.52) or left ventricular mass allometrically scaled to fat-free mass (P = 0.60). There were no changes in any variable in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Using current criterion-standard assessment methods, central arterial stiffness was reduced after resistance training, regardless of the load lifted during RET, with no effect on local carotid artery distensibility or left ventricular mass. Our results support a role of RET in the promotion of positive adaptations in vascular function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".