2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-022-05079-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aortic stiffness increases during prolonged sitting independent of intermittent standing or prior exercise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 106 publications
2
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The potential short duration of benefits from periodic standing breaks may also explain the lack of mitigation from sitting-induced changes in AIx@75, DBP, and cfPWV. Our cfPWV results align with previous work showing periodic standing interruptions to be ineffective at reducing sitting-induced increases in cfPWV (39,58). These findings further strengthen the evidence suggesting that periodic standing interruptions may be insufficient to provide cardiovascular benefits against prolonged sitting.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The potential short duration of benefits from periodic standing breaks may also explain the lack of mitigation from sitting-induced changes in AIx@75, DBP, and cfPWV. Our cfPWV results align with previous work showing periodic standing interruptions to be ineffective at reducing sitting-induced increases in cfPWV (39,58). These findings further strengthen the evidence suggesting that periodic standing interruptions may be insufficient to provide cardiovascular benefits against prolonged sitting.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…cfPWV increased after the sitting (P < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.55) and standing conditions (P < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.63), but not the elliptical condition (P = 0.43, Cohen's d = 0.13) (Fig. 2A), similar to previously reported effects (12,14,17,(37)(38)(39). In addition, ΔcfPWV was smaller in the elliptical condition compared with the sitting (0.1 ± 0.4 m•s −1 vs 0.5 ± 0.4; P < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.92) and standing conditions (0.1 ± 0.4 vs 0.4 ± 0.3 m•s −1 ;…”
Section: Pulse Wave Velocitysupporting
confidence: 90%