MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386944694 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003307

Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Central Hemodynamics and Fluid Regulating Hormones

2023· article· en· W4386944694 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle M.A. Thompson, Alexander S.D. Gamble, Alexandra M. Coates, Jamie F. Burr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPolymer Source (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood flow restrictionHemodynamicsHormoneBlood flowInternal medicineEndocrinologyCardiologyMedicineResistance training

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to characterize both the efficacy of altered restriction pressures and consequences of optimized blood flow restriction (BFR) for altering the cardiovascular and fluid regulating response in humans. METHODS: This work comprised a series of related trials. Phase 1: during semi-recumbent cycling (5 min, 60 W) with BFR at 0%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of participants' lowest arterial occlusion pressure (LOP) echocardiographic images were collected alongside continuous heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). In phase 2, 24 h fluid balance (intake-output) and fluid-regulating hormone responses were measured after a practical BFR exercise session (treadmill walking: 5·3 min, 1 min rest, 5 km·h -1 , 5% incline, 100% LOP). Phase 3 examined the magnitude and effect of blood volume distribution following BFR treadmill walking using a modified CO-rebreathe technique. RESULTS: Cardiac ejection fraction remained stable irrespective of cuff pressure and despite a reduction in end-diastolic volume (Δ of 11 ± 9 mL, P = 0.02). HR and BP were highest at 100% LOP (ΔHR = 18 ± 19 bpm, ΔSBP = 51 ± 30 mm Hg, ΔDBP = 33 ± 15 mm Hg, ΔRate Pressure Product = 76 ± 32 bpm·mm Hg·100 -1 ). BFR treadmill walking stimulated a greater release of fluid-regulating hormones than normal walking (Δrenin = BFR: 25.3 ± 24.2 vs CON: 9.1 ± 11.8 ng·L -1 ; Δcopeptin = BFR: 50.1 ± 97.9 vs. CON: 0.43 ± 0.8 pmol·L -1 ), but no difference in fluid retention was observed ( P = 0.2). Approximately 27% of total blood volume was confined to the legs during BFR, but the relative volume trapped in the legs was not related to fluid-regulating hormone release (renin r = -0.04, P = 0.9; copeptin r = 0.27, P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: BFR exercise elicits the largest cardiovascular effect using 100% LOP, with evidence of appreciable fluid regulating hormonal response during a typical BFR exercise session. The relative volume of blood sequestered in the limb does not appear to drive this response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207