Markus Hein1, Kristine Chobanyan-Jürgens2,3, Uwe Tegtbur1, Stefan Engeli2, Jens Jordan4, Sven Haufe5. 1. Institute of Sports Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 2. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center and University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 5. Institute of Sports Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Haufe.sven@mh-hannover.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that the combination of endurance training and hypoxia leads to greater improvements in resting and exercise blood pressure in old sedentary individuals compared to endurance training only. METHODS: We randomly assigned 29 old overweight participants (age: 62± 6 years, body mass index (BMI): 28.5 ± 0.5 kg/m2, 52% men) tosingle blind 8-week bicycle exercise in hypoxia (fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) = 0.15) or normoxia (FIO2 = 0.21). Brachial blood pressure was measured at rest, during maximal incremental exercise testing, and during a 30 min constant work rate test, at baseline and after the training period. RESULTS:Work rate, heart rate and perceived exertion during training were similar in both groups, with lower oxygen saturation for participants exercising under hypoxia (88.7 ± 1.5 vs. 96.2 ± 1.2%, t(27) = - 13.04, p < 0.001, |g|= 4.85). Office blood pressure and blood pressure during incremental exercise tests did not change significantly in either group after the training program. Systolic blood pressure during the constant work rate test was reduced after training in hypoxia (160 ± 18 vs. 151 ± 14 mmHg, t(13) = 2.44 p < 0.05, |d|= 0.55) but not normoxia (154 ± 22 vs. 150 ± 16 mmHg, t(14) = 0.75, p = 0.46, |d|= 0.18) with no difference between groups over time (F = 0.08, p = 0.77, η2 = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In old individuals hypoxia in addition to exercise does not have superior effects on office or exercise blood pressure compared to training in normoxia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02196623 (registered 22 July 2014).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that the combination of endurance training and hypoxia leads to greater improvements in resting and exercise blood pressure in old sedentary individuals compared to endurance training only. METHODS: We randomly assigned 29 old overweight participants (age: 62 ± 6 years, body mass index (BMI): 28.5 ± 0.5 kg/m2, 52% men) to single blind 8-week bicycle exercise in hypoxia (fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) = 0.15) or normoxia (FIO2 = 0.21). Brachial blood pressure was measured at rest, during maximal incremental exercise testing, and during a 30 min constant work rate test, at baseline and after the training period. RESULTS: Work rate, heart rate and perceived exertion during training were similar in both groups, with lower oxygen saturation for participants exercising under hypoxia (88.7 ± 1.5 vs. 96.2 ± 1.2%, t(27) = - 13.04, p < 0.001, |g|= 4.85). Office blood pressure and blood pressure during incremental exercise tests did not change significantly in either group after the training program. Systolic blood pressure during the constant work rate test was reduced after training in hypoxia (160 ± 18 vs. 151 ± 14 mmHg, t(13) = 2.44 p < 0.05, |d|= 0.55) but not normoxia (154 ± 22 vs. 150 ± 16 mmHg, t(14) = 0.75, p = 0.46, |d|= 0.18) with no difference between groups over time (F = 0.08, p = 0.77, η2 = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In old individuals hypoxia in addition to exercise does not have superior effects on office or exercise blood pressure compared to training in normoxia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02196623 (registered 22 July 2014).
Authors: Athanase Benetos; Bernard Waeber; Joseph Izzo; Gary Mitchell; Lawrence Resnick; Roland Asmar; Michel Safar Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Qi Fu; Nathan E Townsend; S Michelle Shiller; Emily R Martini; Kazunobu Okazaki; Shigeki Shibata; Martin J Truijens; Ferran A Rodríguez; Christopher J Gore; James Stray-Gundersen; Benjamin D Levine Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Helene Ameln; Thomas Gustafsson; Carl Johan Sundberg; Kensaku Okamoto; Eva Jansson; Lorenz Poellinger; Yuichi Makino Journal: FASEB J Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kristine Chobanyan-Jürgens; Renate J Scheibe; Arne B Potthast; Markus Hein; Andrea Smith; Robert Freund; Uwe Tegtbur; Anibh M Das; Stefan Engeli; Jens Jordan; Sven Haufe Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P González-Muniesa; A Lopez-Pascual; J de Andrés; A Lasa; M P Portillo; F Arós; J Durán; C J Egea; J A Martinez Journal: J Physiol Biochem Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 4.158
Authors: Carie S Facemire; Andrew B Nixon; Robert Griffiths; Herbert Hurwitz; Thomas M Coffman Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Hannes Gatterer; Sven Haacke; Martin Burtscher; Martin Faulhaber; Andreas Melmer; Christoph Ebenbichler; Kingman P Strohl; Josef Högel; Nikolaus C Netzer Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 3.942