Isoflavone Supplementation Does Not Potentiate the Effect of Combined Exercise Training on Resting and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Non-Obese Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial-A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise and isoflavone supplementation are potential strategies to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases in postmenopausal women. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there are additive effects of isoflavone supplementation when associated with combined aerobic and resistance exercise on resting and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in blood pressure variability (BPV). Thirty-one non-obese postmenopausal women were randomly allocated into two groups: placebo and exercise (Placebo n = 19); and isoflavone supplementation (100 mg/day) and exercise (isoflavone n = 19). ABPM and BPV were evaluated before and after 10 weeks of moderate combined (aerobic and resistance) exercise training. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) with Bonferroni correction and intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare the effects of interventions on resting BP, ABPM and BPV. Combined exercise training decreased resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and reduced 24 h and awake ambulatory SBP, DBP and mean blood pressure over time, with no additional effects of isoflavone supplementation. No changes were observed in sleep period, or in BPV indexes (Standard Deviation of 24 h (SD), daytime and nighttime interval (SDdn) and average real variability (ARV) in both groups. We conclude that isoflavone supplementation does not potentiate the effects of combined training on resting and ambulatorial systolic and diastolic blood pressure in non-obese postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".