Key result
Low-load resistance exercise to failure produces similar hemodynamic responses as high-load exercise in stable CAD.
Why the study?
Acute physiological responses to low-load resistance exercise to concentric failure compared with traditional high-load resistance exercise had not been assessed in patients with coronary artery disease.
Does low-load resistance exercise to concentric failure elicit similar acute hemodynamic responses compared to high-load resistance exercise in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=18)
Crossover
Does low-load resistance exercise to concentric failure elicit similar acute hemodynamic responses compared to high-load resistance exercise in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Low-load resistance exercise to concentric failure elicits similar acute cardiovascular responses to traditional high-load resistance exercise in patients with stable CAD, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative with potentially reduced joint stress.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports low-load resistance exercise to failure as a viable alternative in stable CAD; extends acute hemodynamic equivalence data versus high-load protocols.
PURPOSE: This study assessed acute physiological responses to a single set of low-load biceps curls to concentric failure resistance exercise (LLCF-RE; 40% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) compared with traditional/recommended high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE; 70% of 1RM, 10 repetitions) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In this randomized crossover clinical trial, 18 patients with stable CAD were randomized to 1 of 2 sequences: (A) LLCF-RE followed by HL-RE 24 to 48 hours later or (B) HL-RE followed by LLCF-RE 24 to 48 hours later. Hemodynamic responses including rate pressure product (RPP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured at baseline, immediately after exercise, and 3-minute post-exercise. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also assessed. RESULTS: Both protocols resulted in significant increases in hemodynamic measures post-exercise (P < .05), with no significant time × condition interactions (P > .05). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement between LLCF-RE and HL-RE with small mean biases (RPP: 3.09; SBP: 0.61 mm Hg; DBP: 3.00 mm Hg; HR: 2.28 beats/min; RPE: -0.61) and acceptable limits of agreement (RPP: -30.55 to 36.72; SBP: -25.19 to 26.41 mm Hg; DBP: -10.17 to 16.17 mm Hg; HR: -14.49 to 19.04 beats/min; RPE: -3.47 to 2.25). CONCLUSIONS: In screened patients with CAD, LLCF-RE elicits similar cardiovascular responses to traditional HL-RE when performed with proper technique. Given its potential advantages, such as reduced joint stress, LLCF-RE may be a suitable alternative for some patients. Further research is warranted to evaluate safety, particularly across multiple sets, and to determine whether LLCF-RE yields comparable long-term benefits to HL-RE in larger and more diverse populations with CAD.
Ghorbani et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=18). Low-load biceps curls to concentric failure resistance exercise (LLCF-RE) vs. High-load resistance exercise (HL-RE; 70% of 1RM, 10 repetitions) was evaluated on Hemodynamic responses including rate pressure product, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate (p=>0.05). Low-load resistance exercise to failure elicited similar acute hemodynamic responses compared to traditional high-load exercise in patients with stable CAD (P>0.05 for time × condition interactions).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: