ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2010
Greater forearm venous compliance in resistance-trained men.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visualization of Venous Compliance of Superficial Veins Using Non-Contact Plethysmography Based on Digital Red-Green-Blue Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Vascular adaptations to low-load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction.European journal of applied physiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Greater venous compliance is associated with attenuation of the tolerance response to orthostatic stress and reduced incidence of venous diseases. Resistance training induces tolerance to orthostatic challenge and the growth of capillaries, which may lead to negative and positive effects on venous compliance, respectively. It has not been confirmed, however, whether habitual resistance training positively or negatively affects venous compliance. We compared the forearm venous compliance in resistance-trained men with age-matched controls. Eleven resistance-trained middle-aged men (37.7 ± 1.5 years) and 12 age-matched sedentary controls (36.7 ± 1.6 years) were studied. Forearm venous compliance was measured in subjects in the supine position by inflating a venous collecting cuff placed around the upper arm to 60 mmHg for 8 min and then decreasing cuff pressure to 0 mmHg at a rate of 1 mmHg/s. Forearm venous compliance was determined using the first derivative of the pressure-volume relation during cuff pressure reduction (compliance = β(1) + 2β(2) × cuff pressure). Forearm venous compliance at 20 mmHg cuff pressure was 16% greater in the resistance-trained group than in the age-matched sedentary controls (0.097 ± 0.005 vs. 0.083 ± 0.004 ml/dl/mmHg, P < 0.05). Forearm venous compliance was positively related to forearm venous volume (r = 0.643, P = 0.0009), but not forearm muscle mass (r = 0.391, P = 0.0648). In conclusion, the present study suggests that (1) the resistance-trained men have greater forearm venous compliance than age-matched controls, and (2) the higher forearm venous compliance in the resistance-trained men may be explained by greater forearm venous capacitance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20596725What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.