4.3 Article

Exercise capacity and 24-h blood pressure in prehypertensive men and women

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 251-258

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.07.021

关键词

prehypertension; ambulatory blood pressure; exercise capacity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prehypertensive individuals are at increased risk for developing hypertension and cardiovascular disease compared to those with normal blood pressure (BP). Physically active, normotensive individuals are also at lower risk for developing hypertension than sedentary individuals. We assessed the relationship between fitness and 24-h ambulatory BP in prehypertensive men and women. Methods: We assessed exercise capacity and 24-h BP in 407 men (age 51 +/- 11 years) and 243 women (age 54 10 years) with resting systolic BP 120 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg, defined as prehypertension. Fitness categories (low, moderate, and high) were established according to exercise time and age. Results: Multiple regression analysis revealed that fitness status was inversely associated with ambulatory BP in both genders (P <.001). After adjusting for various confounders, individuals in the lowest fitness category had significantly higher 24-h, daytime, and night-time BP than those in the moderate and high fitness categories. For men, differences between low and moderate fitness categories were 6/4 mm Hg, 8/4 mm Hg, and 7/3 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime, and night-time BP, respectively (P <.05). For women, the differences were 8/5 mm Hg, 9/5 mm Hg, and 8/7 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime, and night-time BP, respectively. Similar differences were evident in both genders between low and high fitness category (P <.05). Conclusions: Moderate physical activity promotes lower BP during a 24-h period in prehypertensive men and women. The risk for developing hypertension is likely to be lowered if moderate intensity physical activity in this vulnerable population is encouraged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据