↓ Skip to main content

Does the combination of resistance training and stretching increase cardiac overload?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does the combination of resistance training and stretching increase cardiac overload?
Published in
Clinics, September 2019
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2019/e1066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel Costa e Silva, Roberto Simão, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Conceição, Pablo B. Costa, Humberto Miranda, Rodolfo Rodrigues da Conceição, Roberto L Almeida, Mônica Akemi Sato

Abstract

To compare the effects of combinations of resistance training (RT) and static stretching (SS) on heart rate (HR), systolic pressure (SBP), diastolic pressure (DBP), rate pressure product (RPP), oxygen saturation (SpO2), rating of perceived effort (RPE), and heart rate variability (HRV) in men. Twelve normotensive healthy men participated in four protocols: a) SS+RT, b) RT+SS, c) RT, and d) SS. Variables were measured before, immediately after, and 15, 30, and 45 min after the sessions. The combination of SS and RT increased (p<0.001) HR when compared to the effects of the noncombined protocols (from 2.38 to 11.02%), and this result indicated metabolic compensation. Regarding DBP, there were differences (p<0.001) between the RT and SS groups (53.93±8.59 vs. 67.00±7.01 mmHg). SS has been shown to be able to reduce (p<0.001) SpO2 (4.67%) due to the occlusion caused by a reduction in the caliber of the blood vessels during SS compared to during rest. The increase in RPP (6.88% between RT and SS+RT) along with the HR results indicated higher metabolic stress than that reflected by the RPE (combined protocols increased RPE from 21.63 to 43.25%). The HRV analysis confirmed these results, showing increases (p<0.01) in the LF index between the combined and noncombined protocols. Compared to the effect of RT, the combination of SS and RT promoted a vagal suppression root mean square of the successive differences (RMSSD) index (from 9.51 to 21.52%) between the RT and SS+RT groups (p<0.01) and between the RT and RT+SS groups (p<0.001). Static stretching increases cardiac overload and RPE, reducing oxygen supply, especially when performed in combination with RT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,360,834
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#279
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,954
of 350,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 350,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.