Author
Listed:
- Hayden W Hess
- Courtney E Wheelock
- David Hostler
Abstract
Previous studies suggest that training methodology alters orthostatic tolerance in elite and/or well-trained athletes. However, little is known about the effect of training methodology on orthostatic tolerance among the general physically active population. We tested the hypothesis that men and women participating in hybrid training (i.e., combined resistance and endurance training) would demonstrate superior orthostatic tolerance compared to aerobic endurance trained and recreationally active individuals. Twenty-nine participants were classified into one of the three groups depending on their current, self-reported training methodology. All participants reported at least 150 minutes per week of recreational activity (Recreationally Active Group; n = 10), hybrid training classes (Hybrid Group; n = 9), or endurance training (Endurance Group; n = 10) for ≥6 months. Anthropometrics (height and mass) were measured, and body composition was assessed via air displacement plethysmography. Orthostatic tolerance was assessed by a progressive lower-body negative pressure (LBNP) test and quantified via cumulative stress index (CSI). CSI did not differ between groups (p = 0.2542). Fat-free mass (FFM) was positively related to CSI (R² = 0.4092) and differed between groups (recreationally active: 56.1 ± 10.0 kg; hybrid: 65.5 ± 13.2 kg; endurance: 51.2 ± 10.5 kg; p = 0.0453). However, CSI normalized to FFM did not differ between groups (p = 0.6210; FFM missing for two participants). Among recreationally active adults, training methodology does not appear to modify orthostatic tolerance. Consistent with previous work, we report that body composition and anthropometrics are related to orthostatic tolerance highlighting the importance in maintaining lean mass regardless of training methodology.
Suggested Citation
Hayden W Hess & Courtney E Wheelock & David Hostler, 2026.
"Orthostatic tolerance and training methodology in physically active men and women,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-9, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0345175
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345175
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0345175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.