Recovery Blood Pressure Patterns following Standing to Lying Test (One of the Autonomic Testing Protocol) in Relation to Aerobic Fitness Levels

The aim of the study was to compare the selected recovery blood pressure variables following lying to standing test between high fitness group (LFG) and low fitness group (LFG) of high altitude male youth. The high fitness (n1=35) and low fitness (n2=35) groups were determined by VO2max ranks of 242 healthy male youth samples of Kashmir (attitude: 6070 feet/1850 meters). The selected 70 samples out of 242 among which top 35 ranks were considered in HFG and bottom 35 ranks were considered in LFG. The age of the subjects ranged from 18 to 23 years. Data was collected using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer and a stethoscope was used to record the blood pressure of the subjects at various timings of lying to standing test (one of the autonomic testing protocol). The selected variables were age in years, body weight in kilograms (B.Wt.), height in centimeters (Ht.), resting heart rate (HRrest), Basal Blood Pressure (BslBP),pulse pressure (PP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), change of systolic blood pressure at 30 seconds of lying to standing test (LST30CSBP), change of systolic blood pressure at one  minute of lying to standing test (LST1CSBP), change od systolic blood pressure at two minutes of lying to standing test (LST2CSBP), Systolic Blood pressure at 30 seconds of lying to standing test (SBP30LST), diastolic Blood pressure at 30 seconds of lying to standing test (DBP30LST), systolic Blood pressure at one minute of lying to standing test (SBP1LST), diastolic Blood pressure at one minute of lying to standing test (DBP1LST), systolic Blood pressure at two minute of lying to standing test (SBP2LST), diastolic Blood pressure at two minute of lying to standing test (DBP2LST), systolic blood pressure at two and half minute of lying to standing test (SBP2.5LST), diastolic Blood pressure at two and half minute of lying to standing test (DBP12.5LST), systolic Blood pressure at five minute of lying to standing test (SBP5LST) and diastolic Blood pressure at five minute of lying to standing test (DBP5LST).For statistical analysis the collected data was computed with mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variance and independent‘t’ test. The major findings reflect significant difference between HFG and LFG in regard toVO2max (t= 47.66), (r=0.99);HRrest (t= -4.28), (r=0.46);  LSTCSBP30Sec (t= -4.27), (r=0.46); LSTCSBP1Min(t=-4.22),(r=0.46); LSTCSBP2Min (t=3.89),(r=0.50); SBPLST30Sec(t=2.69), (r=0.31);SBPLST1Min(t=-3.49), (r=0.39);SBPLST2Min (t= -4.23), (r=0.46); DbpLST2Min (t=-2.98), (r=0.34); DBPLST2.5Min (t= -1.98), (r=0.23); and DBPLST5Min (t= -2.01), (r=0.24).The other variables have neither significant group difference nor their group difference effect size is conclusive. The recovery of blood pressure following lying to standing test was faster in HFG than that of LFG. The study concluded that HFG having better blood pressure recovery patterns following lying to standing test than that of LFG.

Key Words: Blood Pressure, Lying To Standing Test, Heart Rate, High Altitude, Kashmir

Authors: Sajjad Ahmad Bhat, Bharat Kumar & Dhananjoy Shaw

Download Full Paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *