Introduction: As the number of COVID-19 cases begin to diminish it is important to turn our attention to any long-term issues that may be associated with a prior infection. Cardiovascular defects have been noted following prior SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, less is known about how a previous infection alters the cardiovascular response to exercise. Further, differences may exist during exercise between previously SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who had symptoms (symptomatic) relative to those who did not have symptoms (asymptomatic). We hypothesized that previously symptomatic (S) COVID-19 recoveries have an altered cardiovascular response to acute exercise relative to both control (CON; never infected), and previously COVID-19 positive asymptomatic (AS) individuals.Methods: Twenty-seven subjects (CON = 9; AS = 9; S = 9) underwent 30 min of submaximal treadmill exercise. During exercise, blood pressure was recorded on the brachial artery every 5 min and 3-lead electrocardiography was measured continuously. Indirect indicators of autonomic nervous system health: heart rate variability and blood pressure variability were measured during each session. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) was taken prior to exercise in seated, standing and supine positions.Results: Blood pressure was similar (p > 0.05) amongst all three groups. There were no differences between average heart rate (HR; CON = 104 ± 4 BPM vs AS = 118 ± 6 BPM vs. S = 112 ± 3 BPM), mean arterial pressure (MAP; CON = 108 ± 4 mmHg vs. AS = 105 ± 13 mmHg vs. S = 108 ± 7 mmHg) or oxygen consumption (VO2) between groups during a bout of exercise. However, the standard deviation of the inter beat intervals of normal sinus beats, a measure of heart rate variability (HRV) (CON = 138 ± 2.8 m vs. AS = 156 ± 6 m vs. S = 77.7 ± 11 m; p < 0.05) and blood pressure variability (BPV; CON = 5.18 ± 1.1 vs. AS = 12.1 ± 0.88 mmHg vs. S = 10.2 ± 10.7 mmHg; p < 0.05) were different in our S group. Further, when HRV was assessed in the frequency domain the very low frequency was different during exercise in the S group relative to the other groups.Discussion: Collectively, these data suggest that a previous symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may alter heart rate and blood pressure regulation during exercise.
As the number of COVID‐19 cases begin to diminish it is important to turn our attention to any long‐term issues that may be associated with a prior infection. Cardiovascular (CV) defects have been noted following infection. However, less is known how a previous COVID‐19 infection alters CV response during exercise (EX). Furthermore, differences may exist between COVID‐19 infected individuals who had symptoms (symptomatic) when compared with those that did not have symptoms (asymptomatic) during EX. Hypothesis Previously symptomatic (S) COVID‐19 recoveries have an altered CV response to acute EX relative to both control (CON; never infected), and asymptomatic (AS) individuals who were previously infected with COVID‐19. Methods Subjects (n=14; CON=4; S=5; AS=5; Age = 21 ± 2.3) filled out a questionnaire before performing EX to determine if they were AS or S and if symptomatic what symptoms they experienced. Subjects next performed a 5‐minute warm‐up followed by 25 minutes of treadmill EX (5‐6 METS). During EX, blood pressure was recorded on the brachial artery every 5 minutes and 3‐lead electrocardiography was measured continuously. Heart rate variability (HRV) was analyzed in the time‐domain using the standard deviation of the inter beat intervals of normal sinus beats (SDNN). Blood pressure variability (BPV) was computed as the average of the absolute differences between consecutive mean arterial pressure (MAP) measurements. A one‐way ANOVA with a Tukey’s post hoc was used to determine statistical differences between groups. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. Significance was set to p<0.05. Results Baseline MAP in a seated (CON=89 ± 6 mmHg; AS=92 ± 3 mmHg; S=87± 5 mmHg), standing (CON=86 ± 2 mmHg; AS=90 ± 7 mmHg; S=86 ± 3 mmHg) and supine (CON=86 ± 3 mmHg; AS=90 ± 6 mmHg; S=86 ± 4 mmHg) position were similar amongst all three groups. There were no differences (p>0.05) between HR (CON = 104 ± 4 BPM vs. AS=118 ±6 BPM vs. S=1112± 3 BPM) or MAP (Con = 108±4 mmHg vs. AS=105±13 mmHg vs. S=108±7 mmHg) between groups during EX. However, HRV (Con=139 vs. AS =156±6ms vs. S=77.7±11ms; S vs. CON; AS; p<0.05) and BPV (Con= 139 ± AS=13±1.1 mmHg vs. S=5±1.0mmHg; S vs. CON; AS; p<0.05) were different. Conclusion Previously symptomatic subjects may have altered HRV and BPV during EX and thus indicates that experiencing symptoms associated with COVID‐19 may impact the ANS.
Subjects were 20% accurate in the foot task and 88% accurate in the hand task based on squared residuals. Accuracy outcomes in the present study were not statistically different from accuracy outcomes from identical mass perception tasks using running shoes in either men (shoe mass range 220-360 g) or women (shoe mass range 160-290 g), for either foot or hand perceptual tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies, subjects perceived relative basketball shoe masses poorly when wearing the shoes but well when holding them. It appears that mass perceptual abilities are comparable regardless of whether running shoes (with overall lighter masses) or basketball shoes (with overall heavier masses) are used.
It is common knowledge that exercise (EX) is protective against a myriad of diseases. Despite the well-established benefits, EX compliance remains low. It has been shown that the EX-related release of dopamine can increase analgesia and cause a sensation of euphoria. Individual variation in dopaminergic signaling, as evidenced by EX induced analgesia, may be responsible for difference in EX compliance. PURPOSE: To examine if higher EX capacity (VO2max) or time spent performing EX per week is related to greater EX analgesia or an increased self-perceived positive mood state following EX. METHODS: Eight subjects (6 women and 2 men; age = 21.1 ± 0.6 yrs) were tested for maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max) using a graded cycling test. Each subject was brought back to the laboratory the next week to perform an exercise session using 65% of VO2max on a cycle ergometer. Subjects filled out an EX frequency questionnaire before the EX session. Minimal pain threshold (MPT) was measured using a pain pressure threshold algometer placed on the extensor carpi radialis of each subject before and after EX. Each subject also completed the Psychoactive Effects Questionnaire (PEQ), comprised of 36 questions that assess subjective dopaminergic and dopaminergic effects of psychoactive drugs, before and after EX. Pearson's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between MPT and PEQ vs. VO2max and weekly EX frequency. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. RESULTS:The average VO2max of our subjects was 35.1 ± 3.1 ml/kg/min. A bout of EX at 65% of VO2max increased MPT by 59.2 ± 4.1% (p<0.05) and PEQ by 103.4 ± 5.1% (p<0.01) following EX across all subjects. MPT (r=0.51; p=0.20) or PEQ (r=0.21; p=0.67) had no relationship to VO2max .There was however a significant relationship between MPT (r= 0.82; p = 0.01) and positive responses on the PEQ (r =0.71; p=0.002) to EX frequency. CONCLUSION: Increased frequency of exercise appears to be related to EX induced analgesia and improved mood state, independent of EX capacity. Individual differences in the dopaminergic response of EX may provide rationale for differences in EX frequency.Post exertion malaise (PEM) is a commonly reported clinical feature of Gulf War illness (GWI) that has not been systematically studied under controlled laboratory conditions. We have previously reported variable PEM responses in GWI 24-hrs post exercise, underscoring the need for research that more thoroughly characterizes the symptom response. PURPOSE: To examine symptom responses to acute aerobic exercise in Gulf War Veterans (GV).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.