Maternal and fetal responses to acute high-intensity resistance exercise during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine maternal and fetal cardiovascular responses to high-intensity resistance exercise in pregnancy. METHODS: 10 healthy pregnant (26.4±3.2 weeks gestation) and 10 healthy non-pregnant individuals were recruited (34.8±6 and 33.5±2.9 years, respectively). At least 48 hours after baseline strength testing to determine 10-repetition maximum (10 RM), participants completed 10 repetitions of barbell back squat, bench press and deadlift at 70%, 80% and 90% of 10 RM with free breathing, followed by 10 repetitions at 90% 10 RM with a Valsalva manoeuvre. Maternal heart rate was monitored continuously. Fetal heart rate, umbilical systolic/diastolic (S/D) ratio, resistive index (RI) and pulsatility index (PI), as well as maternal blood pressure, glucose and lactate were assessed immediately before and after exercise. RESULTS: The amount of weight lifted and the rate of perceived exertion by pregnant and non-pregnant participants were similar throughout each exercise. Maternal heart rate increased with the amount of weight lifted, peaking with the use of the Valsalva manoeuvre (squat: 137.3±8.4 bpm; bench press: 110.5±10.4 bpm; deadlift: 130.7±9.0 bpm). Fetal bradycardia was not observed, and fetal heart rate did not change from pre-to-post exercise (squat: p=0.639; bench press: p=0.682; deadlift: p=0.847). Umbilical blood flow metrics, such as RI, remained within normal ranges throughout each set of squats (p=0.642), bench press (p=0.287) and deadlifts (p=0.614). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that high-intensity resistance exercises are well tolerated by both mother and fetus, including while using the Valsalva manoeuvre.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".