A high-salt meal does not augment blood pressure responses during maximal exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augmented blood pressure (BP) responses during exercise are predictive of future cardiovascular disease. High dietary sodium (Na+) increases BP responses during static exercise. It remains unclear if high dietary Na+ augments BP responses during dynamic exercise. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that an acute high-Na+ meal would augment BP responses during dynamic exercise. Twenty adults (10 male/10 female; age, 26 ± 5 years; BP, 105 ± 10/57 ± 6 mm Hg) were given a high-Na+ meal (HSM; 1495 mg Na+) and a low-Na+ meal (LSM; 138 mg Na+) separated by at least 1 week, in random order. Serum Na+ and plasma osmolality were measured. Eighty minutes following the meal, participants completed a graded-maximal exercise protocol on a cycle ergometer. Heart rate, beat-by-beat BP, cardiac output, total peripheral resistance, and manual BP were measured at rest and during exercise. Both serum Na+ (HSM: Δ1.6 ± 2.0 vs LSM: Δ1.1 ± 1.8 mmol/L, P = 0.0002) and plasma osmolality (HSM: Δ3.0 ± 4.5 vs LSM: Δ2.0 ± 4.2 mOsm/(kg·H2O), P = 0.01) were higher following the HSM. However, the HSM did not augment BP during peak exercise (systolic BP: HSM: 170 ± 23 vs LSM: 171 ± 21 mm Hg, P = 0.81). These findings suggest that an acute high-salt meal does not augment BP responses during dynamic exercise in adults. Novelty The high-salt meal increased serum sodium and plasma osmolality compared with the low-salt meal. The high-salt meal did not augment blood pressure responses during maximal dynamic exercise. This is important as augmented blood pressure responses during exercise put individuals at greater risk for development of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".