↓ Skip to main content

Influence of aerobic fitness on vasoreactivity in young men

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Article details
Title
Influence of aerobic fitness on vasoreactivity in young men
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00421-017-3698-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated a direct relationship between aerobic fitness and vasodilatory function (i.e., flow-mediated dilation; FMD); however, the relation between aerobic fitness and vasoconstrictor responsiveness (i.e., low flow-mediated constriction; L-FMC), and the overall vasoactive range (FMD + L-FMC) is unclear. To test the hypothesis that L-FMC and the overall vasoactive range (FMD + L-FMC) will be related to aerobic fitness in young, healthy men. Twenty men (age: 23 ± 5 years) were recruited, and divided evenly into a higher (HF) vs. lower (LF) aerobic fitness group, quantified via YMCA cycle ergometry (VO2 peak extrapolation), and a 3-min step test (1-min heart rate recovery). Duplex Doppler-ultrasound was used to assess brachial artery FMD and L-FMC. Estimated VO2 peak (HF = 55 ± 10 vs. LF = 38 ± 5 mL/kg/min) and heart rate recovery (HF = 36 ± 10 vs. LF = 25 ± 8 beats) were greater in the HF group (P < 0.05). FMD and the vasoactive range were similar between groups; however, L-FMC was significantly greater in HF (HF = -2.5 ± 1.6 vs. LF = -0.7 ± 1.8%, P < 0.05; d = 1.18). A correlational analysis revealed an inverse relationship between L-FMC and both HR recovery (r = -0.665, P < 0.01) and estimated VO2 peak (r = -0.5, P < 0.05). This work supports an association between L-FMC and aerobic fitness in young, healthy men. Longitudinal or interventional studies are warranted to support causality, and to distinguish whether L-FMC is more sensitive to changes in aerobic fitness than FMD.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Sports and Recreations 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#24,530,673
of 27,267,055 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#4,329
of 4,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,978
of 333,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#41
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,267,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.