| Title |
Double-leg isometric exercise training in older men
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oajsm.s39375 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony W Baross, Jonathan D Wiles, Ian L Swaine |
| Abstract |
Double-leg isometric training has been demonstrated to reduce resting blood pressure in young men when using electromyographic activity (EMG) to regulate exercise intensity. This study assessed this training method in healthy older (45-60 years.) men. Initially, 35 older men performed an incremental isometric exercise test to determine the linearity of the heart rate versus percentage peak EMG (%EMGpeak) and systolic blood pressure versus %EMGpeak relationship. Thereafter, 20 participants were allocated to a training or control group. The training group performed three double-leg isometric sessions per week for 8 weeks, at 85% of peak heart rate. The training resulted in a significant reduction in resting systolic (11 ± 8 mmHg, P < 0.05) and mean arterial (5 ± 7 mmHg, P < 0.05) blood pressure. There was no significant change in resting systolic blood pressure for the control group or diastolic blood pressure in either group (all P > 0.05). These findings show that this training method, used previously in young men, is also effective in reducing resting systolic and mean arterial blood pressure in older men. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 5 | 42% |
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 20 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,784,523
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#66
of 250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,695
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.