Characterizing the interindividual postexercise hypotension response for two order groups of concurrent training in patients with morbid obesity

Abstract

Background: Postexercise hypotension (PEH) is a common physiological phenomenon occurring immediately after endurance training (ET), resistance training (RT), and ET plus RT, also termed concurrent training (CT); however, there is little knowledge about the interindividual and magnitude response of PEH in morbidly obese patients.Aim: The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the effect of CT order (ET + RT vs. RT + ET) on the blood pressure responses; 2) characterize these responses in responders and nonresponders, and 3) identify potential baseline outcomes for predicting blood pressure decreases as responders.Methods: A quasi-experimental study developed in sedentary morbidly obese men and women (age 43.6 ± 11.3 years; body mass index [BMI] ≥40 kg/m2) was assigned to a CT group of ET plus RT (ET + RT; n = 19; BMI 47.8 ± 16.7) or RT plus ET order group (RT + ET; n = 17; BMI 43.0 ± 8.0). Subjects of both groups received eight exercise sessions over four weeks. Primary outcomes include systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), mean arterial pressure [MAP], heart rate at rest [HR], and pulse pressure [PP] measurements before and after 10 min post-exercise. Secondary outcomes were other anthropometric, body composition, metabolic, and physical fitness parameters. Using the delta ∆SBP reduction, quartile categorization (Q) in “high” (Rs: quartile 4), “moderate” (MRs: quartile 3), “low” (LRs: quartile 2), and “nonresponders” (NRs: quartile 1) was reported.Results: Significant pre–post changes were observed in ET + RT in session 2 for SBP (131.6 vs. 123.4 mmHg, p = 0.050) and session 4 (131.1 vs. 125.2 mmHg, p = 0.0002), while the RT + ET group showed significant reductions in session 4 (134.2 vs. 125.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). No significant differences were detected in the sum of the eight sessions for SBP (∑∆SBP) between ET + RT vs. RT + ET (−5.7 vs. −4.3 mmHg, p = 0.552). Interindividual analyses revealed significant differences among frequencies comparing Q1 “NRs” (n = 8; 22.2%), Q2 “LRs” (n = 8; 22.2%), Q3 “MRs” (n = 9; 25.0%), and Q4 “HRs” (n = 11; 30.5%), p < 0.0001. Quartile comparisons showed significant differences in SBP changes (p = 0.035). Linear regression analyses revealed significant association between ∑∆SBP with body fat % (β –3.826, R2 0.211 [21.1%], p = 0.031), skeletal muscle mass [β –2.150, R2 0.125 (12.5%), p = 0.023], fasting glucose [β 1.273, R2 0.078 (7.8%), p = 0.003], triglycerides [β 0.210, R2 0.014 (1.4%), p = 0.008], and the 6-min walking test [β 0.183, R2 0.038 (3.8%), p = 0.044].Conclusion: The CT order of ET + RT and RT + ET promote a similar ‘magnitude’ in the postexercise hypotensive effects during the eight sessions of both CT orders in 4 weeks of training duration, revealing “nonresponders” and ‘high’ responders that can be predicted from body composition, metabolic, and physical fitness outcomes.

Inter-individual responses of post-exercise hypotension in older adults with hypertension: An exploratory analysis of different exercise modalities

“…Physical exercise is essential for hypertension treatment; it reduces BP and slows the progression of cardiovascular diseases among adults with hypertension ( Pescatello et al, 2019 ). Moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training ( Cornelissen and Smart, 2013 ), high intensity interval training ( Carpes et al, 2022 ), and combined training ( Álvarez et al, 2022 ) have been described as effective exercise strategies to reduce BP.…”

Average and Interindividual Effects to a Comprehensive Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Program

“…Eta partial squared for interaction (Time × Group) was assessed by η 2 obtained from the ANOVA with small (η 2 = 0.01), medium (η 2 = 0.06), and large (η 2 = 0.14) effects defined according to Lakens (2013) [26]. Interindividual variability analysis was carried out using quartile classification only to those main outcomes, and categorizing each sample in HRs, MRs, LRs and NRs (Figures 3 and 4) [17,24]. The prevalence of NRs was described using the comparisons by percentage among each CVD profile group.…”

“…After the end of the concurrent training intervention, we classified all patients according to those HRs, MRs, LRs or NRs using quartile categorization in each main outcome, as previously [17,24,25]. Thus, we additionally reported each percentage of HRs, MRs, LRs, and NRs, including their delta changes mean in each CVD group, and the mean delta changes (∆) in each quartile to the anthropometric/body composition (∆WC, ∆body fat, ∆SMM), and cardiorespiratory fitness outcomes (∆VO 2peak , VE•VCO 2slope −1 , HR max-pred , and PO max ).…”

“…This means that some patients could be high-responders (HRs), moderateresponders (MRs), low-responders (LRs) or non-responders (NRs) for improving a particular health outcome. Different methods have been described for NRs classification, including the statistical typical error of measurement [14], clinical cut-off points [16], and quartile categorization of the exercise training results [17]. This variation in exercise training effects has been shown for anthropometric/body composition, cardiometabolic, and physical fitness/cardiorespiratory performance tests previously [15,18].…”