Sympathetic activity is not a main cause of blood pressure reduction with exercise training in un‐medicated middle‐aged/older men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study tested the hypothesis that training reduces resting sympathetic activity and improves baroreflex control in both hypertensive and normotensive men but reduces blood pressure only in hypertensive men. METHODS: Middle-aged/older un-medicated stage-1 hypertensive males (mean age 55 ± 3 years; n = 13) and normotensive controls (mean age 60 ± 5 years; n = 12) participated in 8 weeks of supervised high-intensity interval spinning training. Before and after training, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and blood pressure were measured at rest and during a sympatho-excitatory cold pressor test (CPT). Based on the measurements, baroreceptor sensitivity and baroreceptor threshold were calculated. RESULTS: Resting MSNA and baroreceptor sensitivity were similar for the hypertensive and the normotensive groups. Training lowered MSNA (p < 0.05), expressed as burst frequency (burst/min), overall, and to a similar extent, in both groups (17% and 27%, respectively, in hypertensive and normotensive group), whereas blood pressure was only significantly (p < 0.05) lowered (by 4 mmHg in both systolic and diastolic pressure) in the hypertensive group. Training did not (p > 0.05) alter the MSNA or blood pressure response to CPT or increase baroreceptor sensitivity but reduced (p < 0.05) the baroreceptor threshold with a main effect for both groups. Training adherence and intensity were similar in both groups yet absolute maximal oxygen uptake increased by 15% in the normotensive group only. CONCLUSION: The dissociation between the training induced changes in resting MSNA, lack of change in baroreflex sensitivity and the change in blood pressure, suggests that MSNA is not a main cause of the blood pressure reduction with exercise training in un-medicated middle-aged/older men.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".