Terje F Gjøvaag1, Peyman Mirtaheri, Kristoffer Simon, Gøran Berdal, Irja Tuchel, Tonje Westlie, Kari Anette Bruusgaard, Birgitta Blakstad Nilsson, Jonny Hisdal. 1. 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Occupational Therapy, Prosthetics and Orthotics, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, NORWAY; 2Faculty of Technology, Art and Design, Department of Industrial Development, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, NORWAY; 3Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, NORWAY; 4Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, NORWAY; and 5Oslo Vascular Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Aker, Oslo, NORWAY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigate hemodynamic responses of resistance exercise (RE) with moderate load (i.e., international guidelines for RE of patients) versus RE with high load in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS:Medically stable male (n = 11) and female patients (n = 4) treated withPCI or percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass surgery a minimum of 6 months before this study, performed three sets of 15RM and 4RM RE in a randomized order on separate days. Beat-to-beat systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) were monitored at preexercise, and continuously during RE. RESULTS: Compared with preexercise, SBP and DBP (mean of three sets) increased by 12% to 13% (both; P < 0.001) and 35% to 40% after 15RM RE (both; P < 0.001). 15RM SBP and DBP were higher than 4RM SBP and DBP (both; P < 0.001). The SBP of the fourth repetition of 15 RM RE was similar to the SBP of the fourth repetition of 4RM RE. Compared with preexercise, SV increased moderately after 4RM and 15 RM RE, respectively (both, P < 0.001). HR increased more after 15RM compared with 4RM RE (P < 0.05); thus, higher CO after 15RM (compared with 4RM RE; P < 0.05) was mainly caused by higher HR. SVR decreased by 15% (P < 0.001) and 50% (P < 0.01) after 4RM and 15RM RE. CONCLUSIONS:SBP and DBP increased significantly more during moderate load RE; thus, the magnitude of the external load is not the prime determinant of the pressure response during RE. If management of blood pressure is of concern, high load/low rep RE is preferable to medium load/high rep RE.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Investigate hemodynamic responses of resistance exercise (RE) with moderate load (i.e., international guidelines for RE of patients) versus RE with high load in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Medically stable male (n = 11) and female patients (n = 4) treated with PCI or percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass surgery a minimum of 6 months before this study, performed three sets of 15RM and 4RM RE in a randomized order on separate days. Beat-to-beat systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) were monitored at preexercise, and continuously during RE. RESULTS: Compared with preexercise, SBP and DBP (mean of three sets) increased by 12% to 13% (both; P < 0.001) and 35% to 40% after 15RM RE (both; P < 0.001). 15RM SBP and DBP were higher than 4RM SBP and DBP (both; P < 0.001). The SBP of the fourth repetition of 15 RM RE was similar to the SBP of the fourth repetition of 4RM RE. Compared with preexercise, SV increased moderately after 4RM and 15 RM RE, respectively (both, P < 0.001). HR increased more after 15RM compared with 4RM RE (P < 0.05); thus, higher CO after 15RM (compared with 4RM RE; P < 0.05) was mainly caused by higher HR. SVR decreased by 15% (P < 0.001) and 50% (P < 0.01) after 4RM and 15RM RE. CONCLUSIONS:SBP and DBP increased significantly more during moderate load RE; thus, the magnitude of the external load is not the prime determinant of the pressure response during RE. If management of blood pressure is of concern, high load/low rep RE is preferable to medium load/high rep RE.
Authors: Andrew Haynes; Matthew D Linden; Elisa Robey; Gerald F Watts; Hugh Barrett; Louise H Naylor; Daniel J Green Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2016-10-17
Authors: Camila Simões Seguro; Ana Cristina Silva Rebelo; Anderson Garcia Silva; Matheus Malaquias Alves Dos Santos; John Sebastião Cardoso; Valéria Apolinário; Paulo Cesar Veiga Jardim; Paulo Gentil Journal: Eur J Transl Myol Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Arthur F Vale; Juliana A Carneiro; Paulo C V Jardim; Thiago V Jardim; James Steele; James P Fisher; Paulo Gentil Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 5.531