Finger Blood Pressure During Leg Resistance Exercise

Abstract Blood pressure (BP) assessment during resistance exercise can be useful to avoid high BP, reducing cardiovascular risk, especially in hypertensive individuals. However, non-invasive accurate technique for this purpose is not available. The aim of this study was to compare finger photoplethy...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of sports medicine 2010-08, Vol.31 (8), p.590-595
Main Authors: Gomides, R. S., Dias, R. M. R., Souza, D. R., Costa, L. A. R., Ortega, K. C., Mion, D., Tinucci, T., Moraes Forjaz, C. L. de
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Blood Pressure
Blood Pressure Determination - methods
Clinical Sciences
Exercise Test - methods
Female
Fingers - blood supply
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Hypertension - physiopathology
Knee Joint - physiology
Male
Middle Aged
Photoplethysmography - methods
Resistance Training - methods
Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Blood pressure (BP) assessment during resistance exercise can be useful to avoid high BP, reducing cardiovascular risk, especially in hypertensive individuals. However, non-invasive accurate technique for this purpose is not available. The aim of this study was to compare finger photoplethysmographic (FPP) and intra-arterial BP values and responses during resistance exercise. Eight non-medicated hypertensive subjects (5 males, 30–60 years) were evaluated during pre-exercise resting period and during three sets of the knee extension exercise performed at 80% of 1RM until fatigue. BP was measured simultaneously by FPP and intra-arterial methods. Data are mean±SD. Systolic BP was significantly higher with FPP than with intra-arterial: at pre-exercise (157±13 vs. 152±10 mmHg; p
ISSN:0172-4622
1439-3964
DOI:10.1055/s-0030-1252054