Meeting international self-report muscle strengthening guidelines is associated with better cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging in muscle strengthening activities (e.g., resistance training) at least twice/week is promoted by (Inter)national movement guidelines. Cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity (cvBRS) reflects the ability to modulate R-R interval in response to changes in systolic blood pressure. Given the current conflicting literature, this study posed to explore the relationship between self-report muscle strengthening frequency and spontaneous cvBRS. 114 adults (62 females; age: 33 ± 19 years, 22% >55 years; body mass index: 24.2 ± 3.7 kg/m2) self-reported their weekly muscle strengthening activity frequencies via the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire. Supine beat-by-beat R-R intervals [electrocardiography; 1.00 ± 0.18 s (0.90–1.50 s)] and systolic blood pressure [via finger photoplethysmography; 116 ± 11 mmHg (93–151 mmHg)] were recorded for 10.7 ± 2.0 min (5.3–14.5 min). Spontaneous cvBRS was assessed using the sequence technique. Data were analyzed using multiple regressions adjusted for age, sex, body mass index. Participants completed 2 ± 2 (0–7) days/week of muscle strengthening activities (56% met guidelines), and average overall cvBRS was 14.9 ± 9.1 (3.1–48.4) ms/mmHg. Higher reported frequencies were positively associated with overall cvBRS (Adjusted R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001; β = 2.24, p < 0.001). Meeting muscle strengthening activity guidelines was associated with improved overall cvBRS (Adjusted R2 = 0.29, p < 0.001; β = 7.68, p < 0.001). All results were unchanged if cvBRS for up-sequences or down-sequences only were used (all, p < 0.001). In conclusion, engaging in muscle strengthening exercises and particularly meeting existing guidelines were associated with better beat-by-beat vagally-mediated blood pressure regulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".