4.6 Article

Arterial compliance of rowers: implications for combined aerobic and strength training on arterial elasticity

Journal

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01054.2005

Keywords

rowing; arterial stiffness; cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-072729] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-20996] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [DA-018431] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regular endurance exercise increases central arterial compliance, whereas resistance training decreases it. It is not known how the vasculature adapts to a combination of endurance and resistance training. Rowing is unique, because its training encompasses endurance- and strength-training components. We used a cross-sectional study design to determine arterial compliance of 15 healthy, habitual rowers [50 +/- 9 (SD) yr, 11 men and 4 women] and 15 sedentary controls (52 +/- 8 yr, 10 men and 5 women). Rowers had been training 5.4 +/- 1.2 days/wk for 5.7 +/- 4.0 yr. The two groups were matched for age, body composition, blood pressure, and metabolic risk factors. Central arterial compliance (simultaneous ultrasound and applanation tonometry on the common carotid artery) was higher (P < 0.001) and carotid beta-stiffness index was lower (P < 0.001) in rowers than in sedentary controls. There were no group differences for measures of peripheral (femoral) arterial stiffness. The higher central arterial compliance in rowers was associated with a greater cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity, as estimated during a Valsalva maneuver (r = 0.54, P < 0.005). In conclusion, regular rowing exercise in middle-aged and older adults is associated with a favorable effect on the elastic properties of the central arteries. Our results suggest that simultaneously performed endurance training may negate the stiffening effects of strength training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available