The effect of different proximities to failure on arterial stiffness following resistance training protocols matched for volume-load.

IF 2.2 Q3 PHYSIOLOGY
Eleftherios Karanasios, Scott Hannah, Helen Ryan-Stewart, James Faulkner
{"title":"The effect of different proximities to failure on arterial stiffness following resistance training protocols matched for volume-load.","authors":"Eleftherios Karanasios, Scott Hannah, Helen Ryan-Stewart, James Faulkner","doi":"10.14814/phy2.70196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared acute changes in measures of arterial stiffness (AS) between two resistance training (RT) protocols that were load, volume and rest matched, but differed in intensity of effort. Eleven healthy adults (36.4 ± 6.8 years) performed a RT protocol with high intensity of effort (HE) and a RT protocol with low intensity of effort (LE). The HE protocol consisted of 3 sets of 12 repetitions, while the LE comprised of 6 sets of 6 repetitions. Loading intensity, volume load, and total rest duration were equivalent between the RT sessions. Pulse wave velocity, augmentation index values collected at baseline, immediately post and 15 min post-exercise. HE elicited significantly greater increases in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (6.4 ± 0.3 to 7.3 ± 0.5 m/s) when compared to LE (6.6 ± 0.3 to 6.7 ± 0.3 m/s) (p < 0.05). Both HE and LE induced significant increases in augmentation index (13 ± 5.6 to 28.1 ± 9.3%) post exercise (all p < 0.05). These findings demonstrate that RT with a lower intensity of effort attenuate increases in measures of arterial stiffness compared to a RT scheme at higher intensity of effort when volume load and total rest are equalized.</p>","PeriodicalId":20083,"journal":{"name":"Physiological Reports","volume":"13 7","pages":"e70196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.70196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared acute changes in measures of arterial stiffness (AS) between two resistance training (RT) protocols that were load, volume and rest matched, but differed in intensity of effort. Eleven healthy adults (36.4 ± 6.8 years) performed a RT protocol with high intensity of effort (HE) and a RT protocol with low intensity of effort (LE). The HE protocol consisted of 3 sets of 12 repetitions, while the LE comprised of 6 sets of 6 repetitions. Loading intensity, volume load, and total rest duration were equivalent between the RT sessions. Pulse wave velocity, augmentation index values collected at baseline, immediately post and 15 min post-exercise. HE elicited significantly greater increases in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (6.4 ± 0.3 to 7.3 ± 0.5 m/s) when compared to LE (6.6 ± 0.3 to 6.7 ± 0.3 m/s) (p < 0.05). Both HE and LE induced significant increases in augmentation index (13 ± 5.6 to 28.1 ± 9.3%) post exercise (all p < 0.05). These findings demonstrate that RT with a lower intensity of effort attenuate increases in measures of arterial stiffness compared to a RT scheme at higher intensity of effort when volume load and total rest are equalized.

与容量负荷相匹配的阻力训练方案对动脉僵硬度的影响。
本研究比较了负荷、容量和休息相匹配但强度不同的两种阻力训练(RT)方案中动脉僵硬度(AS)的急性变化。11名健康成人(36.4±6.8岁)分别接受高强度运动(HE)和低强度运动(LE)两组。HE方案由3组12次重复组成,LE方案由6组6次重复组成。负荷强度、体积负荷和总休息时间在两组间相等。在基线、运动后立即和运动后15分钟采集的脉搏波速度、增强指数值。与LE(6.6±0.3至6.7±0.3 m/s)相比,HE引起颈动脉-股动脉脉搏波速度显著增加(6.4±0.3至7.3±0.5 m/s)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physiological Reports
Physiological Reports PHYSIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
374
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Physiological Reports is an online only, open access journal that will publish peer reviewed research across all areas of basic, translational, and clinical physiology and allied disciplines. Physiological Reports is a collaboration between The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society, and is therefore in a unique position to serve the international physiology community through quick time to publication while upholding a quality standard of sound research that constitutes a useful contribution to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信