Evaluation of the Post-Training Hypotensor Effect in Paralympic and Conventional Powerlifting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High blood pressure (HBP) has been associated with several complications and causes of death. The objective of the study was to analyze the hemodynamic responses in Paralympic bench press powerlifting (PP) and conventional powerlifting (CP) before and after training and up to 60 minutes (min) after training. Ten PP and 10 CP athletes performed five sets of five repetition maximal bench press exercises, and we evaluated systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure (SBP, DBP, and MBP, respectively), heart rate (HR), heart pressure product (HPP), and myocardial oxygen volume (MVO2). The SBP increased after training (p < 0.001), and there were differences in the post training and 30, 40, and 60 min later (p = 0.021), between 10 and 40 min after training (p = 0.031, η2p = 0.570), and between CP and PP (p =0.028, η2p = 0.570). In the MBP, there were differences between before and after (p = 0.016) and 40 min later (p = 0.040, η2p = 0.309). In the HR, there was a difference between before and after, and 5 and 10 min later (p = 0.002), and between after and 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min later (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.767). In HPP and MVO2, there were differences between before and after (p = 0.006), and between after and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min later (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.816). In CP and PP, there is no risk of hemodynamic overload to athletes, considering the results of the HPP, and training promotes a moderate hypotensive effect, with blood pressure adaptation after and 60 min after exercise.
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".