[LC] Does Not Impair Hemodynamic, Vascular, or Autonomic Responses to Maximal Exercise: Sex-Stratified Study in Young Adults, 2026, Rodrigues et al

[forestglip]

Long COVID Does Not Impair Hemodynamic, Vascular, or Autonomic Responses to Maximal Exercise: Sex-Stratified Study in Young Adults

Spoiler: Authors

Rodrigues, Carla Nascimento dos Santos; Angelotto, Fernanda Rico; Diotto, Vitória Luiz; Cristofoletti, Daniel da Motta; Araújo, Tatiana Oliveira Passos de; de Lima, Marco Antonio; Neto, José Campanholi; Prestes, Jonato; Navalta, James; Pereira, Guilherme Borges

[Line breaks added]

Background/Objectives: Long COVID (LC) has been linked to fatigue, exercise intolerance, and autonomic dysfunction, but sex-stratified data on cardiovascular responses to maximal exercise—an essential component of personalized medicine—are scarce. This study aimed to examine hemodynamic, autonomic, and functional responses during and up to 24 h after a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in young adults with and without Long COVID (LC).

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed 38 physically active adults, who were allocated into four subgroups stratified by clinical condition (LC or control) and biological sex: control–female (CON-F; n = 10), LC–female (LC-F; n = 10), control–male (CON-M; n = 10), and LC–male (LC-M; n = 8).

Outcomes included systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO), total (TPR) and peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index (AIx@75), and heart rate variability (HF, LF, LF/HF), assessed at rest, peak effort, recovery (1, 3, 5, 10, 30, and 60 min), and through 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) after CPET.

Results: SBP increase appropriately during exercise, with higher peaks in males (p < 0.01), and returned to baseline within 5 min across all groups. HR recovery was preserved; however, LC-F showed lower values than CON-F at 3, 5, and 10 min (126 vs. 144 bpm, p = 0.020; 119 vs. 136 bpm, p = 0.020; 94 vs. 109 bpm, p = 0.011), though all groups normalized by 60 min. PWV, AIx@75, TPR and PVR exhibited expected sex-related patterns without LC-related impairments.

HRV indices showed transient post-exercise shifts (HF↓, LF↑, LF/HF↑). Ambulatory monitoring confirmed preserved circadian modulation, with normal systolic dipping (11–13%) and no abnormal nocturnal patterns.

Conclusions: Young physically active adults with LC showed preserved hemodynamic, autonomic, and vascular responses during and after maximal exercise. These findings contribute to personalized medicine by showing that individualized, sex-stratified cardiovascular assessments reveal no clinically relevant impairments in this population, supporting tailored clinical decision making and exercise prescription.

Web | DOI | PDF | Journal of Personalized Medicine | Open Access

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

The authors have struggled with abbreviations.

Long COVID (LC) has emerged…

Participants were allocated into four subgroups based on sex and LC status: control–female (CON-F; n = 10), control–male (CON-M; n = 10), Long COVID–female (LC-F; n = 10), and Long COVID–male (LC-M; n = 8).

A sample size calculation was performed to ensure adequate statistical power to detect mean differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) among four independent groups (CON-M, CL-M, CON-F, and CL-F).

Comparisons between clinical status (CON vs. CL) and sex (female vs. male) were stratified into four primary contrasts: CON-F vs. CL-F, CON-M vs. CL-M, CON-F vs. CON-M, and CL-F vs. CL-M.

Female participants from both the CL group (CL-F) and the CON group (CON-F) exhibited significantly lower values for height (CL-F: 160.9 ± 6.2 cm; CL-M: 180.6 ± 7.9 cm; p = 0.00002), body mass (CL-F: 64.7 ± 6.3 kg; CL-M: 88.3 ± 12.0 kg; p = 0.00006), and neck circumference (CL-F: 33.1 ± 2.3 cm; CL-M: 38.1 ± 1.8 cm; p = 0.0001) when compared with male participants from both groups.

Very important to report this /s

No mention of PEM. Nearly all are "active" on IPAQ questionnaire. I think it's unlikely this paper is worth reading further.

 

[Trish]

No mention of PEM. Nearly all are "active" on IPAQ questionnaire. I think it's unlikely this paper is worth reading further.

If you only follow up for 60 minutes and don't do any follow up of symptoms afterwards over the following days, you neatly avoid learning anything about PEM.

 

[Utsikt]

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed 38 physically active adults, who were allocated into four subgroups stratified by clinical condition (LC or control)

Hey guys, people that are able to be physically active seem to respond normally to physical activity. What a shocker.

 

[rvallee]

Young physically active adults with LC showed preserved hemodynamic, autonomic, and vascular responses during and after maximal exercise. These findings contribute to personalized medicine by showing that individualized, sex-stratified cardiovascular assessments reveal no clinically relevant impairments in this population, supporting tailored clinical decision making and exercise prescription.

It would actually support the known fact that none of this is deconditioning, but absolutely not the belief that exercise is a solution. Good grief. I don't know which is worse: lack of reasoning, or bullshit reasoning that makes no sense.

we assessed 38 physically active adults

But of course this actually means this study is worthless and should be entirely ignored for wasting time and resources.