4.3 Article

A cholinergic contribution to the circulatory responses evoked at the onset of handgrip exercise in humans

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00236.2014

Keywords

hemodynamic; blood pressure; systemic vascular resistance

Categories

Funding

  1. Royal Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A cholinergic (muscarinic) contribution to the initial circulatory response to exercise in humans remains controversial. Herein, we posit that this may be due to exercise mode with a cholinergic contribution being important during isometric handgrip exercise, where the hyperemic response of the muscle is relatively small compared with the onset of leg cycling, where a marked increase in muscle blood flow rapidly occurs as a consequence of multiple redundant mechanisms. We recorded blood pressure (BP; brachial artery), stroke volume (pulse contour analysis), cardiac output, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) in young healthy males, while performing either 20 s of isometric handgrip contraction at 40% maximum voluntary contraction (protocol 1; n = 9) or 20 s of low-intensity leg cycling exercise (protocol 2; n = 8, 42 +/- 8 W). Exercise trials were conducted under control (no drug) conditions and following cholinergic blockade (glycopyrrolate). Under control conditions, isometric handgrip elicited an initial increase in BP (+5 +/- 2 mmHg at 3 s and +3 +/- 1 mmHg at 10 s, P < 0.05), while SVR dropped after 3 s (-27 +/- 6% at 20 s; P < 0.05). Cholinergic blockade abolished the isometric handgrip-induced fall in SVR and, thereby, augmented the pressor response (+13 +/- 3 mmHg at 10 s; P < 0.05 vs. control). In contrast, cholinergic blockade had a nonsignificant effect on changes in BP and SVR at the onset of leg cycling exercise. These findings suggest that a cholinergic mechanism is important for the BP and SVR responses at the onset of isometric handgrip exercise in humans.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available