ABSTRACT: Exercise training elicits morphological adaptations in the left ventricle (LV) and large-conduit arteries that are specific to the type of training performed (i.e., endurance vs. resistance exercise). We investigated whether the mode of chronic exercise training, and the associated cardiovascular adaptations, influence the blood pressure responses to orthostatic stimulation in 30 young healthy men (10 sedentary, 10 endurance trained, and 10 resistance trained). The endurance-trained group had a significantly larger LV end-diastolic volume normalized by body surface area (vs. sedentary and resistance-trained groups), whereas the resistance-trained group had a significantly higher LV wall thickness and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) compared with the endurance-trained group. In response to 60° head-up tilt (HUT), mean arterial pressure (MAP) rose in the resistance-trained group (+6.5 ± 1.6 mmHg, P < 0.05) but did not change significantly in sedentary and the endurance-trained groups. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased in endurance-trained group (-8.3 ± 2.4 mmHg, P < 0.05) but did not significantly change in sedentary and resistance-trained groups. A forward stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that LV wall thickness and aortic PWV were significantly and independently associated with the MAP response to HUT, explaining ∼41% of its variability (R(2) =0.414, P < 0.001). Likewise, aortic PWV and the corresponding HUT-mediated change in stroke volume were significantly and independently associated with the SBP response to HUT, explaining ∼52% of its variability (R(2) = 0.519, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the change in stroke volume significantly correlated with LV wall thickness (r = 0.39, P < 0.01). These results indicate that chronic resistance and endurance exercise training differentially affect the BP response to HUT, and that this appears to be associated with training-induced morphological adaptations of the LV and large-conduit arteries.
Journal of Applied Physiology 03/2012; 112(11):1891-6. · 3.75 Impact Factor