Why the study?
Does high aerobic training status improve endothelial function in young, healthy women compared to a sedentary lifestyle?
Does high aerobic training status improve endothelial function in young, healthy women compared to a sedentary lifestyle?
Endothelial function is well preserved in young, healthy women, and long-term aerobic training does not further improve dilating capacity.
Endothelial function well preserved in young healthy women; leaves open whether endurance training provides additional vascular benefits beyond resting artery diameter.
Endothelial function is reduced by age, chronic heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension or type 2 diabetes, and it is shown that aerobic exercise may reverse this trend. The effect of a high aerobic training status on endothelial function in young, healthy subjects is however less clear. The present study was designed to determine whether endothelial function is improved in highly endurance-trained young women compared to sedentary, healthy controls. Brachial artery diameter was measured in 16 endurance-trained (age: 23.7 +/- 2.5 years, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max): 60.6 +/- 4.5 ml/kg per min) and 14 sedentary females (age: 23.7 +/- 2.1 years, VO2max: 40.5 +/- 5.6 ml/kg per min) at rest, during flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and after sublingual glycerol trinitrate administration, using high-resolution ultrasound. FMD did not differ between the endurance-trained and the sedentary females (14.8% vs 16.4%, p = NS), despite a substantial difference in VO2max of 50% (p < 0.001). The endurance-trained group possessed however, a 9% larger resting brachial artery diameter when adjusted for body surface area. The results of the present study suggest that endothelial function is well preserved in young, healthy women, and that a high aerobic training status due to long term aerobic training does not improve the dilating capacity any further.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moe et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: