No difference in mean middle cerebral artery blood velocity responses between lower‐ and upper‐body unilateral resistance exercise in untrained individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dynamic resistance exercise (RE) produces sinusoidal fluctuations in blood pressure that are mirrored by middle cerebral artery blood velocity (MCAv). However, whether lower‐ or upper‐body RE elicits a differential cerebrovascular response has not yet been examined. We investigated the cerebrovascular response to lower‐body RE versus upper‐body RE in 15 healthy untrained individuals (12 females and 3 males; mean ± SD; age 25 ± 6 years, height 179 ± 10 cm, weight 71 ± 15 kg and body mass index 24 ± 6 kg/m 2 ). Participants completed four sets of 10 paced repetitions (15 repetitions/min) of unilateral leg‐extension exercise and unilateral bicep‐curl exercise at 60% of predicted one‐repetition maximum (leg extension 30 ± 9 kg and bicep curl 7 ± 3 kg). Beat‐to‐beat blood pressure, bilateral MCAv and partial pressure of end‐tidal carbon dioxide were measured throughout. Within‐exercise mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and mean MCAv were averaged across the set. Additionally, zenith, nadir and zenith‐to‐nadir difference in MAP and mean MCAv for each repetition were averaged across each set. Baseline measures preceding each set were not different for all dependent variables, with no significant interaction differences observed (all p > 0.161). The mean MCAv within exercise decreased across sets (set effect p < 0.001), but MAP did not ( p = 0.071). No interaction effects were observed for any dependent variables (all p > 0.06), However, there was a zenith‐to‐nadir difference in mean MCAv ( p = 0.008), although post hoc tests revealed no significant difference between exercises (all p > 0.078). There were no differences in the cerebrovascular and cardiovascular responses to lower‐ and upper‐body RE, with similar sinusoidal fluctuations in MAP and MCAv mean present during both exercises.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".