Isometric handgrip versus aerobic exercise: a randomized trial evaluating central and ambulatory blood pressure outcomes in older hypertensive participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It remains unclear whether the hemodynamic effects of isometric handgrip exercise (IHG) are comparable to those of aerobic exercise (AE). This study investigated the efficacy of IHG in reducing central and ambulatory blood pressure in older hypertensive participants and compared its effects with AE. METHODS: In a three-arm randomized controlled trial, 54 older hypertensive participants (age range: ≥60; mean age: 69 years) underwent 12 weeks of either IHG training ( n = 17), AE training ( n = 19), or were part of a no-exercise control group ( n = 18). IHG participants engaged in bilateral handgrips using a digital device, four times for 2 min each at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction. AE participants undertook brisk walking and cycling exercises at moderate intensity for 30 min, thrice weekly. Baseline and postintervention measurements included resting office, central, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressures. RESULTS: Both IHG and AE interventions led to significant reductions in office and ambulatory systolic blood pressure compared to control group ( P < 0.05 for both), with no marked difference in the magnitude of systolic blood pressure reductions between the two groups. Notably, the IHG group exhibited greater reductions in office, central, and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure compared to the AE group and control group. CONCLUSION: While both IHG and AE effectively lowered ambulatory systolic blood pressure, IHG demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing central and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, IHG training presents a promising alternative antihypertensive therapy for hypertensive participants over the age of 60.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".