Effects of isometric leg training on ambulatory blood pressure and morning blood pressure surge in young normotensive men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the reported association between diurnal variations in ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and elevated cardiovascular disease risk, little is known regarding the effects of isometric resistance training (IRT), a practical BP-lowering intervention, on ambulatory BP and morning BP surge (MBPS). Thus, we investigated whether (i) IRT causes reductions in ambulatory BP and MBPS, in young normotensives, and (ii) if there are any sex differences in these changes. Twenty normotensive individuals (mean 24-h SBP = 121 ± 7, DBP = 67 ± 6 mmHg) undertook 10-weeks of bilateral-leg IRT (4 × 2-min/2-min rest, at 20% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) 3 days/week). Ambulatory BP and MBPS (mean systolic BP (SBP) 2 h after waking minus the lowest sleeping 1 h mean SBP) was measures pre- and post-training. There were significant reductions in 24-h ambulatory SBP in men (- 4 ± 2 mmHg, P = 0.0001) and women (- 4 ± 2 mmHg, P = 0.0001) following IRT. Significant reductions were also observed in MBPS (- 6 ± 8 mmHg, p = 0.044; - 6 ± 7 mmHg, P = 0.019), yet there were no significant differences between men and women in these changes, and 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP remained unchanged. Furthermore, a significant correlation was identified between the magnitude of the change in MBPS and the magnitude of changes in the mean 2-h SBP after waking for both men and women (men, r = 0.89, P = 0.001; women, r = 0.74, P = 0.014). These findings add further support to the idea that IRT, as practical lifestyle intervention, is effective in significantly lowering ambulatory SBP and MBPS and might reduce the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events that often occur in the morning.
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) | 0.001 | 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".