Acute Effect of High-Intensity Interval Exercise on Blood Pressure in Females Living with Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acute effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure (BP) may depend on the exercise protocol performed. PURPOSE: To compare the acute effect of high- and low-volume HIIT on post-exercise and ambulatory BP in untrained older females diagnosed with both type 2 diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: Fifteen females (69 (65-74) yr) completed a crossover study with three experimental conditions: 1) REST (35 min in sitting position); 2) HIIT10 (10 × 1 min at 90% heart rate max (HRmax)), and 3) HIIT4 (4 × 4 min at 90% HRmax). After each experimental condition, BP was measured under controlled (4 h) and in subsequent free-living conditions (20 h). RESULTS: In the controlled post-condition 4-h period, no significant interaction (time-condition) was observed for all BP parameters ( P ≥ 0.082). Similarly, during the subsequent 20-h free-living ambulatory monitoring (diurnal and nocturnal), no differences between conditions were detected ( P ≥ 0.094). A significant reduction in nighttime pulse pressure was observed in both HIIT4 and HIIT10 compared with REST (46 (44-50), 45 (42-53) vs 50 (45-57) mm Hg, respectively; P ≤ 0.018) with no differences between HIIT conditions ( P = 0.316). Changes in nocturnal systolic BP approached but did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in untrained older females living with type 2 diabetes and hypertension, the HIIT10 and HIIT4 protocols have very limited to no acute effect on post-exercise and ambulatory BP. The fact that the vast majority of participants had well-controlled office and ambulatory BP values as well as low cardiorespiratory fitness could explain these findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".