OBJECTIVE: Exercise has widely documented cardioprotective effects, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are not entirely known. Previously, we demonstrated that aerobic but not strength training lowered resting heart rate and increased cardiac vagal regulation, changes that were reversed by sedentary deconditioning. Here, we focus on the sympathetic nervous system and test whether aerobic training lowers levels of cardiovascular sympathetic activity in rest and that deconditioning would reverse this effect. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial contrasting the effects of aerobic (A) versus strength (S) training on indices of cardiac (preejection period, or PEP) and vascular (low-frequency blood pressure variability, or LF BPV) sympathetic regulation in 149 young, healthy, and sedentary adults. Participants were studied before and after conditioning, as well as after 4 weeks of sedentary deconditioning. RESULTS: As previously reported, aerobic capacity increased in response to conditioning and decreased after deconditioning in the aerobic, but not the strength, training group. Contrary to prediction, there was no differential effect of training on either PEP (A: mean [SD] -0.83 [7.8] milliseconds versus S: 1.47 [6.69] milliseconds) or LF BPV (A: mean [SD] -0.09 [0.93] ln mm Hg(2) versus S: 0.06 [0.79] ln mm Hg(2)) (both p values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings, from a large randomized controlled trial using an intent-to-treat design, show that moderate aerobic exercise training has no effect on resting state cardiovascular indices of PEP and LF BPV. These results indicate that in healthy, young adults, the cardioprotective effects of exercise training are unlikely to be mediated by changes in resting sympathetic activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00358137.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Exercise has widely documented cardioprotective effects, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are not entirely known. Previously, we demonstrated that aerobic but not strength training lowered resting heart rate and increased cardiac vagal regulation, changes that were reversed by sedentary deconditioning. Here, we focus on the sympathetic nervous system and test whether aerobic training lowers levels of cardiovascular sympathetic activity in rest and that deconditioning would reverse this effect. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial contrasting the effects of aerobic (A) versus strength (S) training on indices of cardiac (preejection period, or PEP) and vascular (low-frequency blood pressure variability, or LF BPV) sympathetic regulation in 149 young, healthy, and sedentary adults. Participants were studied before and after conditioning, as well as after 4 weeks of sedentary deconditioning. RESULTS: As previously reported, aerobic capacity increased in response to conditioning and decreased after deconditioning in the aerobic, but not the strength, training group. Contrary to prediction, there was no differential effect of training on either PEP (A: mean [SD] -0.83 [7.8] milliseconds versus S: 1.47 [6.69] milliseconds) or LF BPV (A: mean [SD] -0.09 [0.93] ln mm Hg(2) versus S: 0.06 [0.79] ln mm Hg(2)) (both p values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings, from a large randomized controlled trial using an intent-to-treat design, show that moderate aerobic exercise training has no effect on resting state cardiovascular indices of PEP and LF BPV. These results indicate that in healthy, young adults, the cardioprotective effects of exercise training are unlikely to be mediated by changes in resting sympathetic activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00358137.
Authors: Thomas A Pearson; Steven N Blair; Stephen R Daniels; Robert H Eckel; Joan M Fair; Stephen P Fortmann; Barry A Franklin; Larry B Goldstein; Philip Greenland; Scott M Grundy; Yuling Hong; Nancy Houston Miller; Ronald M Lauer; Ira S Ockene; Ralph L Sacco; James F Sallis; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mikko P Tulppo; Arto J Hautala; Timo H Mäkikallio; Raija T Laukkanen; Seppo Nissilä; Richard L Hughson; Heikki V Huikuri Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2003-03-21
Authors: Thomas A Pearson; Terry L Bazzarre; Stephen R Daniels; Joan M Fair; Stephen P Fortmann; Barry A Franklin; Larry B Goldstein; Yuling Hong; George A Mensah; James F Sallis; Sidney Smith; Neil J Stone; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: P van de Borne; M Rahnama; S Mezzetti; N Montano; A Porta; J P Degaute; V K Somers Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Paul M Coen; Liliana C Baptista; Margaret B Bell; Devin Drummer; Sara A Harper; Manoel E Lixandrão; Jeremy S McAdam; Samia M O'Bryan; Sofhia Ramos; Lisa M Roberts; Rick B Vega; Bret H Goodpaster; Marcas M Bamman; Thomas W Buford Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Andrea Y Arikawa; William Thomas; Sanjay R Patel; Mindy S Kurzer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Martin Lindgren; Josefina Robertson; Martin Adiels; Maria Schaufelberger; Maria Åberg; Kjell Torén; Margda Waern; N David Åberg; Annika Rosengren Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-04-28
Authors: Yuhong Yuan; M Khawar Ali; Karen J Mathewson; Kartik Sharma; Mahi Faiyaz; Wei Tan; Sean P Parsons; Kailai K Zhang; Natalija Milkova; Lijun Liu; Elyanne Ratcliffe; David Armstrong; Louis A Schmidt; Ji-Hong Chen; Jan D Huizinga Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.677