4.4 Article

Home-based isometric exercise training induced reductions resting blood pressure

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 1, Pages 83-93

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-016-3501-0

Keywords

Static exercise; Wall squat; Randomised controlled trial; Normotensive; Physiological mechanisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Isometric exercise training (IET) reduces resting blood pressure (BP). Most previous protocols impose exercise barriers which undermine its effectiveness as a potential physical therapy for altering BP. An inexpensive, home-based programme would promote IET as a valuable tool in the fight against hypertension. The aims of this study were: (a) to investigate whether home-based wall squat training could successfully reduce resting BP and (b) to explore the physiological variables that might mediate a change in resting BP. Twenty-eight healthy normotensive males were randomly assigned to a control and a 4 week home-based IET intervention using a crossover design with a 4 week 'washout' period in-between. Wall squat training was completed 3 x weekly over 4 weeks with 48 h between sessions. Each session comprised 4 x 2 min bouts of wall squat exercise performed at a participant-specific knee joint angle relative to a target HR of 95% HRpeak, with 2 min rest between bouts. Resting heart rate, BP, cardiac output, total peripheral resistance, and stroke volume were taken at baseline and post each condition. Resting BP (systolic -4 +/- 5, diastolic -3 +/- 3 and mean arterial -3 +/- 3 mmHg), cardiac output (-0.54 +/- 0.66 L min(-1)) and heart rate (-5 +/- 7 beats min(-1)) were all reduced following IET, with no change in total peripheral resistance or stroke volume compared to the control. These findings suggest that the wall squat provides an effective method for reducing resting BP in the home resulting primarily from a reduction in resting heart rate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available