4.5 Article

Cardiovascular stress responsivity, body mass and abdominal adiposity

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 1329-1337

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803011

关键词

stress; blood pressure; waist-hip ratio; body mass; longitudinal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between adiposity and cardiovascular stress reactivity and recovery in middle-aged men and women, and investigate the influence of impaired poststress cardiovascular recovery on changes in body mass index ( BMI) and waist-hip ratio over 3 y. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 225 healthy men and women aged 47-59 y were recruited from the British civil service. METHODS: Laboratory mental stress testing was carried out, with blood pressure (BP), cardiac output and total peripheral resistance being measured at baseline, during moderately challenging tasks, and during recovery 40-45 min poststress. Weight, height, waist and hip circumference were assessed at the time of mental stress testing and 3 y later. RESULTS: Behavioural tasks elicited increases in BP sustained by a combination of cardiac activation and raised peripheral resistance. BMI and waist/hip ratio were associated cross-sectionally with impaired poststress recovery of systolic pressure, diastolic pressure and cardiac index independently of age, gender, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption and baseline cardiovascular activity. Increases in waist-hip ratio over 3 y were predicted both by impaired poststress recovery of systolic pressure and cardiac index in men, independently of baseline adiposity and other covariates. No associations between subjective stress and BMI or waist-hip ratio were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Disturbances of cardiovascular responsivity to psychological stress, manifest through impaired poststress recovery, were associated cross-sectionally with BMI, and longitudinally with central adiposity in men. Stress-related cardiovascular dysregulation may contribute to obesity risk.

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

4.5
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