Muscle Strength Influences Pressor Responses to Static Handgrip in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whether differences in absolute muscle strength affect blood pressure (BP) responses to relative intensity static exercise remains controversial but could contribute to known sex-based differences and influence the interpretation of cross-sectional data. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two healthy participants (66 men and 66 women; age, 22 ± 3 yr) underwent continuous seated measurements of BP (Finometer) and heart rate (electrocardiography) during baseline rest and 2 min of static handgrip (30% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)). BP and heart rate responses were quantified in 30-s epochs during exercise and compared between men and women with and without statistical adjustment (ANCOVA) for differences in baseline BP (or heart rate), forearm girth, and handgrip MVC. Within each sex, BP and heart rate responses were compared also between tertiles of handgrip MVC (n = 22 per group). RESULTS: Men had larger systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure responses during static handgrip than did women (interaction term, all P < 0.0005), although heart rates responses were similar (interaction term, P = 0.25). These sex-based BP differences persisted after statistical adjustment for differences in baseline BP or forearm girth; however, controlling for handgrip MVC abolished differences in BP responses during static handgrip exercise between men and women (interaction term, all P > 0.35). In men, BP responses were smaller within the lowest tertile of handgrip MVC (interaction term, all P < 0.006), whereas in women, BP responses were larger within the highest tertile of handgrip MVC (interaction term, all P < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an important between- and within-sex role of absolute handgrip strength in mediating the BP response to static handgrip exercise and highlight the importance of controlling for interindividual differences in future work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".