The role of the muscle metaboreflex on cardiovascular responses to submaximal resistance exercise with different pressures and modes of blood flow restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the role of the muscle metaboreflex on cardiovascular responses to submaximal resistance exercise using different pressures and modes of blood flow restriction. Fifty-three adults completed six visits. The first visit involved a performance test (two sets of unilateral knee extension exercise until task failure at 30% 1RM) with continuous blood flow restriction (80% arterial occlusion pressure). In subsequent visits, participants performed (1) a nonexercise control (Control), 70% of the repetitions completed in the performance test with the cuff inflated to (2) continuously 80% arterial occlusion (LL + 80%), (3) continuously 40% arterial occlusion (LL + 40%), (4) intermittently 80% arterial occlusion during exercise (LL + 80%Int), and (5) 0 mmHg (LL), in a randomized order. Three minutes of post-exercise circulatory occlusion was employed to assess the muscle metaboreflex activation. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at various time points. The pre-post increase in systolic blood pressure was not greater with LL + 80%Int ( p = 0.987) but was greater with LL + 80% and LL + 40% (LL + 80% > LL + 40%, p = 0.005) than LL by 7 [95%CI: 4, 9] and 4 [95%CI; 2, 6] mmHg, respectively. Heart rate increased only with LL + 80% over LL and Control ( p < 0.001). The changes in systolic blood pressure ( p > 0.468) and heart rate ( p > 0.543) did not differ among exercise conditions from immediate post-exercise to the end of the circulatory occlusion. Systolic/diastolic blood pressure returned to a similar level as Control (∼120, ∼70 mmHg, respectively) immediately after the cuff deflation. Continuous blood flow restriction, especially with higher pressure, accentuates muscle metaboreflex activation, resulting in amplified cardiovascular responses to the exercise.
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".