↓ Skip to main content

Interval and continuous exercise enhances aerobic capacity and hemodynamic function in CHF rats

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Interval and continuous exercise enhances aerobic capacity and hemodynamic function in CHF rats
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramiro B. Nunes, Jadson P. Alves, Luíza P. Kessler, André Z. Dornelles, Giuseppe P. Stefani, Pedro D. Lago

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of continuous versus interval aerobic exercise training on hemodynamic parameters, cardiac remodeling, and maximal exercise capacity (MEC) in chronic heart failure (CHF) rats. Twenty-four male Wistar rats were subjected to myocardial infarction (MI) surgery. Five weeks post MI, the animals were assigned to one of three groups: sedentary group (CHF-Sed, n=8), aerobic continuous training group (CHF-ACT, n=8), and aerobic interval training group (CHF-AIT, n=8). Treadmill training was performed five times a week for 8 weeks (ACT: 50 min/day at 15 m/min and AIT: 40 min/day with 8 min of warm-up at 10 m/min and exercise at 15 m/min 4×4 min interspersed with 4×4 min at 23 m/min). MEC was evaluated pre and post exercise program. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), left ventricular mass/body mass ratio (LVM:BM), and total collagen volume fraction were lower in the trained groups compared with the sedentary group, but no difference was found between the trained groups. Systolic ventricular pressure (SVP) and maximum positive derivative of LV pressure (+dP/dtmax) were higher in the trained groups, but CHF-ACT showed higher +dP/dtmax compared to CHF-AIT. Both training regimens were able to increase MEC. However, the aerobic interval training was superior for improving MEC. Aerobic training is an important intervention to improve cardiac function and remodeling and physical capacity in CHF rats. Interval training is a potential strategy to maximize the results, but exercise type and intensity are still topics to be explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Sports and Recreations 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#364
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,027
of 264,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 264,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.