Effects of aerobic and inspiratory strength muscle training on exaggerated blood pressure response during exercise in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) to exercise predicts future hypertension and cardiovascular disease.Although aerobic exercise (AE) and inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST) lower resting blood pressure (BP), their capacity to attenuate EBPR has not been compared.This study examined the effects of AE and IMST on EBPR during maximal exercise testing in hypertensive patients.Methods: Twenty-four participants were randomly assigned to AE (n = 12, 40-70% of heart rate reserve, 30 minutes) or IMST (n = 12, 55-75% of maximal inspiratory pressure, 30 breaths/day), 5 days/week for 8 weeks.Brachial BP and heart rate were measured at rest, during each stage of a graded cycle-ergometer test, and during recovery.EBPR was defined as peak systolic BP (SBP) 210 mmHg (men) or 190 mmHg (women).Primary outcomes were changes in SBP across exercise stages and prevalence of EBPR.Results: Both interventions reduced resting SBP (-8.0 mmHg) and diastolic BP (-4.2 mmHg).The prevalence of EBPR declined from 62.5% to 45.8%, though this did not reach statistical significance ( 2 = 1.34,P = 0.25).Subgroup analysis showed greater SBP attenuation at moderate intensity with AE (-9.2 mmHg, P = 0.020) and at higher intensity with IMST (-8.8 mmHg, P = 0.042).Conclusions: Both AE and IMST attenuated SBP responses during submaximal exercise in hypertensive individuals.These findings highlight a potential for exercise training to mitigate EBPR in hypertension.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".