|
|
||||||||
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TO THE EDITOR: In the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the assessment of traditional risk factors and the subsequent calculation of Framingham risk scores are useful initial steps in the stratification of cardiovascular risk. However, a considerable number of at-risk patients cannot be identified on the basis of these conventional risk factors (4). This has prompted the search for new markers of subclinical disease. In this context, clinical measurements of vascular function and structure have gathered enormous attention in recent years. In the excellent article by Green et al. (3), this concept was applied to exercise training by stating that traditional risk factors fail to encompass the cardiovascular benefits of exercise and that direct effects of exercise training on vasculature should not be overlooked. We fully agree with the authors' main point. It has been demonstrated that detectable reductions in vascular function precede significant changes in traditional cardiovascular risk factors (1). Additionally, evaluating vascular function, using such measurements as arterial stiffness and endothelium-dependent vasodilatation, yield clinically significant differences between active and sedentary lifestyles (2, 5). Moreover, aerobic exercise training lowers arterial stiffness and improves endothelial function in the absence of any significant change in traditional risk factors (2, 5). Thus regular exercise has a direct effect on the vascular wall and may be the best strategy for the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease.
FOOTNOTES
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: H. Tanaka, 1 Univ. Station, D3700 Austin, TX 78712 (e-mail: htanaka{at}mail.utexas.edu)
REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |