Key result
Dynamic resistance training shows no effect on overall arterial stiffness measured by PWV.
Why the study?
Does dynamic resistance training improve arterial stiffness assessed by pulse wave velocity in adults?
Meta-Analysis (n=379)
Does dynamic resistance training improve arterial stiffness assessed by pulse wave velocity in adults?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.102 (95% CI -0.281–0.077)
p-value: p=0.265
Dynamic resistance training does not appear to significantly alter arterial stiffness as measured by pulse wave velocity, though high heterogeneity limits definitive conclusions.
Dynamic resistance training appears neutral for arterial stiffness; leaves optimal protocols and long-term CV risk open amid heterogeneity.
Arterial stiffness predicts cardiovascular risk, but the chronic effects of dynamic resistance training (RT) remain unclear. This meta-analysis quantified RT effects on arterial stiffness assessed by pulse wave velocity (PWV) and explored moderators. Databases were searched through 26 August 2026. Studies included adults (≥19 years) undergoing RT with pre–post PWV data. Random-effects models were used. Fourteen trials included 20 RT interventions and 10 controlled comparisons (n = 379: 278 RT and 101 control participants; age range 19–63 years; mean age, 33.3 ± 14.3 and 32.4 ± 15.1 years in the RT and control groups, respectively; baseline blood pressure range, 108/64 to 137/90 mmHg). Participants were predominantly physically inactive. Assuming a pre–post correlation of 0.50, pooled effects were non-significant for central PWV (g = −0.002; 95% CI, −0.213 to 0.209; p = 0.985), mixed PWV (g = −0.548; 95% CI, −1.168 to 0.071; p = 0.083), peripheral PWV (g = −0.110; 95% CI, −0.436 to 0.217; p = 0.511), and overall PWV (g = −0.102; 95% CI, −0.281 to 0.077; p = 0.265). Heterogeneity ranged from 43% to 70%. Sensitivity analyses using correlations of 0.30 and 0.70 did not alter statistical significance. Most moderator tests, including those involving participant characteristics and FITT-VP components, were not statistically significant. The few significant subgroup differences were exploratory and arose from small, unbalanced groups without multiplicity adjustment, precluding firm conclusions. Dynamic RT was not associated with a significant change in arterial stiffness; however, imprecision and heterogeneity preclude claims of equivalence or absence of physiological effects. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022377587.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cordeiro et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Physically inactive (n=379). Dynamic resistance training vs. Control was evaluated on Overall pulse wave velocity (PWV) (g = -0.102, 95% CI -0.281 to 0.077, p=0.265). Dynamic resistance training was not associated with a significant change in overall arterial stiffness assessed by pulse wave velocity (SMD -0.102; 95% CI -0.281 to 0.077; p=0.265).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: