4.0 Article

Cardiovascular reactivity to psychophysiological stressors: association with hypotensive effects of isometric handgrip training

期刊

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 190-195

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e328330d4ab

关键词

blood pressure; isometric; reactivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Isometric handgrip (IHG) training has been found to have hypotensive effects in normotensive and hypertensive samples. Mechanisms responsible for the reductions in arterial blood pressure have been suggested, but remain equivocal. Objective To investigate whether cardiovascular reactivity to cold pressor and serial subtraction stressors are associated with changes in resting systolic blood pressure found with IHG training. Methods After completion of an 8 week IHG training program and a 6 month detraining washout period, 17 healthy older participants (66 +/- 2 years) completed cold pressor (2 min at 4 +/- 1 degrees C) and serial subtraction (2 min) stressor tasks to assess cardiovascular reactivity. Results Compared with baseline, cold pressor and serial subtraction stressor significantly increased systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate (P<0.001). Heart rate reactivity was significantly different between the cold pressor and serial subtraction tasks (P<0.001). Residualized reductions in systolic blood pressure from IHG training were strongly correlated with serial subtraction task reactivity scores [Systolic blood pressure: r(16)=-0.58, diastolic blood pressure: r(16)=-0.66, heart rate: r(16)=-0.53, P<0.05], but not with cold pressor reactivity [r(16)<0.14, P>0.50]. Conclusion The association between serial subtraction task reactivity and hypotensive effects of IHG training may hint at myocardial mediating mechanisms behind IHG training attenuations and may provide a method for identifying patients who stand to benefit from IHG training. Blood Press Monit 14:190-195 (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据