Acute and chronic effects of traditional and high-speed resistance training on blood pressure in older adults: A crossover study and systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose The present study included two related investigations that explored the acute and chronic effects of high-speed resistance training (HSRT) on blood pressure (BP) in older adults. Methods The first study involved a randomized crossover study that compared the acute effects of traditional resistance exercise (TRT) and high-speed resistance training (HSRT) on hemodynamic parameters in frail older adults. Sixteen institutionalized frail older adults were recruited. BP was recorded before, over 1 h, and 24 h after the end of the experimental session. Participants performed 4 resistance exercises involving 4–8 sets with 4–10 repetitions at moderate intensity. The second study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies that investigated the acute and chronic effects of HSRT on BP in older adults. Crossover, quasi-experimental, and randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of HSRT on BP in people aged 60+ years as a primary or secondary outcome were included. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, SPORTDiscuss, CINAHL, SCOPUS and AgeLine databases from inception through December 31, 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). A pooled effect size was calculated based on standard mean differences (SMD). Results In study 1, we observed that both TRT and HSRT caused post-exercise hypotension (PEH). However, systolic BP (SBP) was significantly lowered for up to 60 min after TRT, while it was only reduced 30 and 50 min after HSRT. There was no difference in SBP between resistance exercise protocols. A reduction in mean arterial pressure was only observed after TRT. In study 2, 1114 articles were identified, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analyses indicated that HSRT did not cause significant PEH. However, a significant reduction in SBP was observed after HSRT programs in comparison to controls (SMD = 0.61, P = 0.009) and baseline values (SMD = 2.03, P = 0.04). Conclusion In study one, we observed that both TRT and HSRT caused systolic PEH in comparison to baseline in frail older adults. However, specific patterns were observed according to each type of RT. Indeed, a longer PEH in comparison to baseline was observed after TRT, whereas HSRT had greater reductions in comparison to CS. In addition, TRT had exclusive reductions in MAP. These results were not supported by our meta-analysis, given that no significant effects of an acute session of HSRT on office and ambulatorial BP were observed. On the other hand, our findings suggest that HSRT might significantly reduce SBP in older adults.