Blood pressure response to graded bicycle exercise in males and females across the age and fitness spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Blood pressure (BP) responses to exercise are frequently measured, with the concern that greater increases are a marker of disease. We sought to characterize the normal exercise BP response in healthy adults and its relationships with age, sex, and fitness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-nine participants [median age 46 (interquartile range 24-56) years, 81% male] underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with repeated, automated BP measures. An exaggerated maximal systolic BP (SBPmax) was defined from current guidelines as ≥210 mmHg in males and ≥190 mmHg in females. Individual linear regression analyses defined the relationship between BP and workload (W; SBP/W-slope and DBP/W-slope). Participants with or without an exaggerated SBPmax and above- or below-median SBP/W-slope were compared. An exaggerated SBPmax was found in 51% of males and 64% of females and was more prevalent in endurance-trained athletes (males 58%, females 72%, P < 0.001). The mean SBP/W-slope was lower in males (0.24 ± 0.10 mmHg/W) than females (0.27 ± 0.12 mmHg/W, P = 0.031). In both sexes, peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was inversely correlated with SBP/W-slope (P < 0.01). Those with an exaggerated SBPmax and below-median SBP/W-slope were 10 years younger and had a 20% higher VO2peak, on average (P < 0.001). A non-exaggerated SBPmax and above-median SBP/W-slope was observed in older individuals with the lowest VO2peak. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of healthy individuals, an exaggerated SBPmax was common and associated with higher fitness. In contrast, higher SBP indexed to W was associated with older age, lower fitness, and female sex. Thus, sex, age, and fitness should be considered when evaluating BP response to exercise. REGISTRATION: Pro@Heart: NCT05164328, ACTRN12618000716268; ProAFHeart: ACTRN12618000711213; Master@Heart: NCT03711539.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".