Intra‐individual differences in the effect of endurance versus resistance training on vascular function: A cross‐over study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a within‐subject, cross‐over design study to compare the impact of 4‐weeks' resistance (RT) versus endurance (END) training on vascular function. We subsequently explored the association of intra‐individual effects of RT versus END on vascular function with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the NOS3 gene. Thirty‐five healthy males (21 ± 2 years old) were genotyped for the NOS3 rs2070744 SNP and completed both training modalities. Participants completed 12 sessions over a 4‐week period, either RT (leg‐extension) or END (cycling) training in a randomized, balanced cross‐over design with a 3‐week washout period. Participants performed peak oxygen uptake (peak VO 2 ) and leg‐extension single‐repetition maximum (1‐RM) testing, and vascular function assessment using flow‐mediated dilation (FMD) on 3 separated days pre/post‐training. Peak VO 2 increased after END ( p < 0.001), while 1‐RM increased after RT ( p < 0.001). FMD improved after 4‐weeks’ training (time effect: p = 0.006), with no difference between exercise modalities (interaction effect: p = 0.92). No relation was found between individual changes (delta, pre‐post) in FMD to both types of training (R 2 = 0.06, p = 0.14). Intra‐individual changes in FMD following END and RT were associated with the NOS3 SNP, with TT homozygotes significantly favoring only END ( p = 0.016) and TC/CC tending to favor RT only ( p = 0.056). Although both training modes improved vascular function, significant intra‐individual variation in the adaptation of FMD was found. The association with NOS3 genotype suggests a genetic predisposition to FMD adapting to a specific mode of chronic exercise. This study therefore provides novel evidence for personalized exercise training to optimize vascular health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".