A single session of exercise reduces blood pressure reactivity to stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stressful situations are common in everyday life and disturb homeostasis. So, an exercise session is a strategy to mitigate blood pressure (BP) peaks in response to stress (i.e., BP reactivity), decreasing the cardiovascular risk. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to verify the effects of a single session of physical exercises on BP reactivity to stress in adults. The searches were performed in digital databases (MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and PsycInfo) and 29 studies were included, totaling 795 individuals (quantitative analysis: k = 25, n = 659). As for exercise characteristics, 21 of the 29 studies focused on aerobic exercises, and 23 studies focused on low to moderate intensities. As for the stress tests, we have them in the following order from the most to the least frequent: stroop color and word test, cold pressor test, arithmetic test, public speaking, handgrip, trier social stress test, and study task. Favorable metanalytic results (standardized mean differences through random-effects approach) for the exercises were found, with attenuated reactivity in systolic BP (pooled effect size = - 0.38 [- 0.49; - 0.27], representing average reductions of 3.7 ± 3.8 mmHg), diastolic BP (pooled effect size = - 0.51 [- 0.70; - 0.33], representing average reductions of 2.9 ± 3.7 mmHg), and mean BP (pooled effect size = - 0.51 [- 0.72; - 0.31], representing average reductions of 4.1 ± 3.3 mmHg). So, acute physical exercise lowers systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure reactivity in response to stressor tasks. However, given the small magnitude of effects, the clinical relevance of this result must be interpreted with caution and be better explored.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".