Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Hypertension and low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are proven risk factors for the development and progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).1–6 The evidence also indicates that these risk factors are highly prevalent in the general population, seldom occur in isolation and are rarely static among most adults.1–6 This risk factor milieu has resulted in the need for multidisciplinary interventions that directly account for the multifactorial nature of ASCVD risk and its prognostic correlates. The inclusion of aerobic-based exercise prescription as a core lifestyle therapy for both the primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD is not only effective for benefitting blood pressure control but also known to directly elicit favourable effects on CRF to yield clinically relevant reductions in cardiovascular-related morbidity and mortality risk over the short, middle and long term.1–8 Evidence for an alternative exercise training paradigm specifically aimed at lowering blood pressure has been equivocal and lacks clear clinical relevance beyond evaluating the change in blood pressure measurement itself.2 Indeed, exercise prescription should aim to provide multi-system benefits.
In a recent issue of the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Edwards et al reported a network meta-analysis describing the effects of specific exercise training interventions on resting blood pressure among a pooled sample of adults exhibiting various cardiovascular health histories.2 This update of the evidence not only extends firm support for the blood pressure lowering effect of aerobic-based exercise training (number of effect sizes=182; weighted mean: −4.49 and −2.53 mm Hg, p<0.001; systolic and diastolic pressure, respectively) but also …
Twitter @ClevelandClinic, @ljlaffin
Contributors All information and materials in the manuscript are original. Each author contributed to the writing of the manuscript and provided final review. Each author takes responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the submitted work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.