Key result
HIIT lowers systolic blood pressure by ~18 mmHg vs. control in older adults with hypertension.
Why the study?
Salusin-alpha and -beta have opposing effects on the etiology of hypertension, prompting an examination of how they, arterial stiffness, and heart rate variability influence blood pressure responses to HIIT.
Does high-intensity interval training reduce blood pressure and improve salusin-β, arterial stiffness, and heart rate variability in older adults with hypertension?
RCT (n=80)
Single-blind
Block randomization
No
Does high-intensity interval training reduce blood pressure and improve salusin-β, arterial stiffness, and heart rate variability in older adults with hypertension?
High-intensity interval training significantly reduces blood pressure in older adults with hypertension, a benefit that appears mechanistically linked to reductions in salusin-β and arterial stiffness, alongside improvements in heart rate variability and cardiorespiratory fitness.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
HIIT warrants consideration for older adults with hypertension; extends evidence by linking BP reductions to salusin-β, stiffness, and HRV changes.
Background and Aims Salusin‐α and ‐β are two isoforms with opposing effects on the etiology of hypertension. We examined the effects of salusin‐α and ‐β, carotid‐femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), and heart rate variability (HRV) on the blood pressure (BP) response to high‐intensity interval training (HIIT). Methods Eighty older adults with hypertension ( n = 80, 59.8 ± 6.1 yr, 27.2 ± 1.4 kg/m 2 , 158.0 ± 11.9/98.7 ± 6.1 mmHg) were randomized to HIIT or control (CTR). HIIT was performed for 12, 1.5 min intervals at 85%–90% heart rate reserve (HR R ) separated by 2 min at 50%–55% HR R for 12 weeks. Results Systolic (SBP 17.7 ± 4.4 mmHg) and DBP (6.9 ± 2.3 mmHg) decreased after HIIT versus CTR ( p s = 0.001). Salusin‐α increased 144.9 ± 34.3 pg/mL after HIIT versus CTR ( p s = 0.001); while salusin‐β (308.7 ± 98.7 pg/mL) and the salusin‐β/α ratio (0.89 ± 0.31) decreased after HIIT versus CTR ( p s = 0.001). cfPWV decreased 336.7 ± 81.3 cm/s after HIIT versus CTR ( p = 0.001). High‐frequency power (HF 7.1 ± 2.1 nu) and SDNN (6.8 ± 1.4 ms) increased after HIIT versus CTR ( p s = 0.001). Low‐frequency power (LF 14.2 ± 3.2 nu) and LF/HF ratio decreased 1.1 ± 0.4 after HIIT versus CTR ( p s = 0.001). After HIIT, salusin‐β ( β = 0.468), LF ( β = 0.189), HF ( β = −0.176), and VO 2peak ( β = −0.150) accounted for 82% of the variance in the SBP response ( p < 0.0001), whereas the salusin‐β ( β = 0.549), cfPWV ( β = 0.346), VO 2peak ( β = −0.186), and HF ( β = −0.179), accounted for 72% of the variance in the DBP response ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion Salusin‐β, cfPWV, HRV and VO 2peak appear to be implicated in the BP benefits of HIIT among older adults with hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Afousi et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Hypertension (n=80). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Control (normal activities of daily living) was evaluated on Change in systolic blood pressure (MD -17.69 mmHg, p=0.001). High-intensity interval training significantly reduced systolic blood pressure by 17.7 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 6.9 mmHg compared to control in older adults with hypertension.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: