Acute Response to a 2-Minute Isometric Exercise Test Predicts the Blood Pressure-Lowering Efficacy of Isometric Resistance Training in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This work aimed to explore whether different forms of a simple isometric exercise test could be used to predict the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of different types of isometric resistance training (IRT) in healthy young adults. In light of the emphasis on primary prevention of hypertension, identifying those with normal BP who will respond to IRT is important. Also, heightened BP reactivity increases hypertension risk, and as IRT reduces BP reactivity in patients with hypertension, it warrants further investigation in a healthy population. METHODS: Forty-six young men and women (24 ± 5 years; 116 ± 10/ 68 ± 8 mm Hg) were recruited from 2 study sites: Windsor, Canada (n = 26; 13 women), and Northampton, United Kingdom (n = 20; 10 women). Resting BP and BP reactivity to an isometric exercise test were assessed prior to and following 10 weeks of thrice weekly IRT. Canadian participants trained on a handgrip dynamometer (isometric handgrip, IHG), while participants in the UK trained on an isometric leg extension dynamometer (ILE). RESULTS: Men and women enrolled in both interventions demonstrated significant reductions in systolic BP (P < 0.001) and pulse pressure (P < 0.05). Additionally, test-induced systolic BP changes to IHG and ILE tests were associated with IHG and ILE training-induced reductions in systolic BP after 10 weeks of training, respectively (r = 0.58 and r = 0.77; for IHG and ILE; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The acute BP response to an isometric exercise test appears to be a viable tool to identify individuals who may respond to traditional IRT prescription.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".