Implications of habitual endurance and resistance exercise for dynamic cerebral autoregulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Findings What is the central question of this study? Does habitual resistance and endurance exercise modify dynamic cerebral autoregulation? What is the main finding and its importance? To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to directly assess dynamic cerebral autoregulation in resistance‐trained individuals, and potential differences between exercise training modalities. Forced oscillations in blood pressure were induced by repeated squat–stands, from which dynamic cerebral autoregulation was assessed using transfer function analysis. These data indicate that dynamic cerebral autoregulatory function is largely unaffected by habitual exercise type, and further document the systemic circulatory effects of regular exercise. Abstract Regular endurance and resistance exercise produce differential but desirable physiological adaptations in both healthy and clinical populations. The chronic effect of these different exercise modalities on cerebral vessels’ ability to respond to rapid changes in blood pressure (BP) had not been examined. We examined dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) in 12 resistance‐trained (mean ± SD, 25 ± 6 years), 12 endurance‐trained (28 ± 9 years) and 12 sedentary (26 ± 6 years) volunteers. The dCA was assessed using transfer function analysis of forced oscillations in BP vs. middle cerebral artery blood velocity (MCAv), induced via repeated squat–stands at 0.05 and 0.10 Hz. Resting BP and MCAv were similar between groups (interaction: both P ≥ 0.544). The partial pressure of end‐tidal carbon dioxide ( ) was unchanged (P = 0.561) across squat–stand manoeuvres (grouped mean for absolute change +0.6 ± 2.3 mmHg). Gain and normalized gain were similar between groups across all frequencies (both P ≥ 0.261). Phase showed a frequency‐specific effect between groups (P = 0.043), tending to be lower in resistance‐trained (0.63 ± 0.21 radians) than in endurance‐trained (0.90 ± 0.41, P = 0.052) and ‐untrained (0.85 ± 0.38, P = 0.081) groups at slower frequency (0.05 Hz) oscillations. Squat–stands induced mean arterial pressure perturbations differed between groups (interaction: P = 0.031), with greater changes in the resistance (P < 0.001) and endurance (P = 0.001) groups compared with the sedentary group at 0.05 Hz (56 ± 13 and 49 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 11 mmHg, respectively). The differences persisted at 0.1 Hz between resistance and sedentary groups (49 ± 12 vs. 33 ± 7 mmHg, P < 0.001). These results indicate that dCA remains largely unaltered by habitual endurance and resistance exercise with a trend for phase to be lower in the resistance exercise group at lower fequencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".