Abstract
Objectives
A variety of factors are known to mediate on the intraocular pressure (IOP) response to resistance training. However, the influence of the body position adopted during resistance training on IOP remain unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the IOP response to the bench press exercise at three levels of intensity when performed in supine and seated positions.
Methods
Twenty-three physically active healthy young adults (10 men and 13 women) performed 6 sets of 10 repetitions against the 10-RM (repetition maximum) load during the bench press exercise against three levels of intensity (high intensity: 10-RM load; medium intensity: 50% of the 10-RM load; and control: no external load) and while adopting two different body positions (supine and seated). A rebound tonometer was employed to measure IOP in baseline conditions (after 60 s in the corresponding body position), after each of the 10 repetitions, and after 10 s of recovery.
Results
The body position adopted during the execution of the bench press exercise significantly affected the changes in IOP (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.83), with the seated position providing lower increases in IOP levels compared to the supine position. There was an association between IOP and exercise intensity, with greater IOP values in the more physically demanding conditions (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.80).
Conclusions
The use of seated positions, instead of supine positions, for the execution of resistance training should be prioritized for maintaining more stable IOP levels. This set of findings incorporates novel insights into the mediating factors on the IOP response to resistance training. In future studies, the inclusion of glaucoma patients would allow to assess the generalizability of these findings.
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00417-023-06009-0/MediaObjects/417_2023_6009_Figa_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The health benefits of physical exercise practice are irrefutable, including risk reductions of at least 20–30% for more than 25 chronic medical conditions and premature mortality [1, 2]. Nevertheless, generic physical activity guidelines should not be used when working with clinical populations. Exercise prescription should be individualized based on underlying medical condition and functional status for optimal patient care [3].
Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide [4]. As a result, public health strategies are being discussed to minimize the negative consequences of glaucoma, although the possibility to adopt different public health strategies vary significantly across countries [5]. Remarkably, the reduction and stabilization of intraocular pressure (IOP) are the only strategy that has proven to be beneficial for the prevention and management of glaucoma, with all the possible interventions (i.e., surgery, pharmacological treatment, or lifestyle) aiming to reduce and stabilize IOP levels [6,7,8,9]. In this regard, the effects of a lifestyle factor such as the physical exercise on IOP control have been extensively explored in recent years, with different types of physical exercise showing either a positive (i.e., IOP reduction) or negative (i.e., IOP increase) effect for the prevention and management of glaucoma [10].
Endurance-type exercises (e.g., running or cycling) performed at low to moderate intensities cause an IOP reduction [11, 12], whereas resistance-type exercises (e.g., weightlifting) provoke an acute IOP rise which is accentuated at higher training intensities (i.e., using heavier loads and performing repetitions closer to muscular failure) [13,14,15]. In non-exercise contexts, there is scientific evidence that IOP values are greater in when adopting a horizontal position compared to the seated and upright positions [16,17,18,19,20]. Specifically, Vera and colleagues [21] found that the IOP response to reading at a close distance (30 cm) is dependent on body position, observing greater IOP values in the supine compared to a seated position. Remarkably, a number of resistance training exercises (e.g., bench press) can be performed while adopting different body positions (e.g., standing, sitting, lying down), but the differences in the IOP behavior when the same exercise is performed adopting different positions have never been examined.
In order to address the gaps found in scientific literature, we designed an experimental study to compare the impact of performing ten repetitions of the bench press exercise in supine and seated positions on IOP levels. Complementarily, these possible differences were determined for three exercise intensities, namely a control condition (no physical effort), medium-intensity condition (half of the 10-repetition maximum (RM) load), and high-intensity condition (10-RM load). Based on the accumulated scientific evidence in non-physical activities [16,17,18,19,20,21], we hypothesized greater IOP values when executing the bench press in a supine compared to a seated position. We also hypothesized that the IOP values will be higher for the more physically demanding exercise conditions [13, 14] and there will be a cumulative and progressive IOP rise as a function of accumulated physical effort [22].
Methods
Participants
An a priori sample size calculation was performed using the GPower 3.1 software. This software has been widely used in research studies and supports sample size and power calculation for various statistical methods (F, t, χ2, z, and exact tests) [23, 24]. For this analysis, we assumed an effect size of 0.20, alpha of 0.05, and power of 0.90, which projected a necessary sample size of 23 participants. At this point, 23 physically active individuals (10 men and 13 women) were recruited to participate in this study (age = 24.7 ± 4.8 years, body mass = 71.2 ± 12.4 kg and body height = 1.73 ± 0.09 m; data presented as mean ± SD). All participants were of Caucasian ethnicity and non-smokers. They were free of any systemic or ocular disease, were not taking any medication, and had no family history of glaucoma. The study followed the guidelines of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) and was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the initiation of the study.
Intraocular pressure assessment
A rebound tonometer (Icare IC200, TiolatOy, INC. Helsinki, Finland) was used to measure IOP from the right eye. This new model has shown an acceptable level of reproducibility in the sitting and supine positions and a high agreement with Goldman applanation tonometry [25, 26]. The IC200 tonometer permits to accurately measure IOP when the subject is sitting, standing, or lying in a supine position due to its free angle measurement addition, and incorporates a light signal to minimize position-related errors. Also, this handheld tonometer has several advantages in practical terms (e.g., easy and rapid measurement, well-tolerated procedure, and does not require topical anesthesia or fluorescein), which makes this device a highly valuable tool for measuring IOP in applied settings. Following the manufacturer recommendation, IOP measurements were taken with the probe placed at a distance of 5 to 8 mm from the central cornea while the subject fixated on a distant target. IOP measurement was conducted by the same examiner (PL).
Testing procedures
The first session was used to determine in a randomized order the 10-RM load (i.e., the load with which participants can perform a maximum of 10 repetitions) during the bench press exercise performed in both supine and seated positions. The session began with a warm-up consisting of jogging and upper-body dynamic stretching exercises. Subsequently, participants performed the first set against the 50% of their self-perceived 10-RM load. Participants were told to stop the set after 5 repetitions when they or an experienced strength and conditioning researcher identified that more than 10 repetitions could be performed. The load was then incremented in agreement between the participant and the researcher and a new set was performed after 3 min of passive rest. Participants needed between 3 and 6 sets to reach their 10-RM load. The 10-RM load was 39.04 ± 18.05 kg in the supine position and 53.57 ± 21.31 kg in the seated position.
The second session allowed us to test our hypotheses and consisted of 6 sets of the bench press exercise (2 positions (supine and seated) and 3 exercise intensities (control, medium intensity, and high intensity)). The 10-RM load and the 50% of the 10-RM load were used for the high- and medium-intensity conditions, respectively. In the control condition, participants simulated the same movement without using any additional load. The order of the sets was randomized and they were separated by 10 min of passive rest. Participants were asked to adopt the corresponding body position, and the baseline measurement was taken after maintaining this position for 60 s. During the exercise set, IOP was assessed immediately after performing each repetition (a total of 10 measurements) in a relaxed position (elbows fully extended). Lastly, IOP was measured after 10 s of passive rest (recovery measurement).
The supine bench press was performed with an Olympic free-weight barbell and weight disks (Fig. 1 panel A). The seated bench press was performed using a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) (Fig. 1 panel B) [27]. This FEMD (Dynasystem, Model Research, Granada, Spain) allows to perform a wide variety of movements and it can deliver a wide variety of stimuli (i.e., isokinetic, isotonic, elastic, isometric, inertial, eccentric, and vibration). The control core of this device permits to precisely regulate both force and angular velocity through a 2000-W electric motor. The user applies forces on a rope that winds on a roller, thus controlling and measuring both force and linear velocity. A load cell detects the tension applied to the rope and the resulting signal goes to an analog-to-digital converter with 12-bit resolution. Displacement and speed data are collected with a 2500-ppr encoder attached to the roller. Data from the different sensors are obtained at a frequency of 1 kHz [28].
Experimental design
A cross-over study was designed to examine the influence of the body position adopted during upper-body dynamic resistance training on IOP values. The 10-RM loads during the bench press exercise performed in supine and seated positions were determined in the first testing session. In the second session, participants randomly performed 6 exercise sets (3 exercise intensities (control, medium intensity, and high intensity) × 2 body positions (supine and seated)) and the IOP was measured before exercise, after each of the 10 repetitions, and after 10 s of recovery (12 IOP measurements for each experimental condition). The six exercise sets were performed in a randomized order in order to minimize the possible effects of fatigue on the findings of the present study, and environmental conditions were kept constant during the course of the experiment (∼ 22 °C and ∼ 60% humidity).
Statistical analyses
Firstly, the normal distribution of the data (Shapiro–Wilk test) and the homogeneity of variances (Levene’s test) were checked. Also, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (2 × 3: body position (supine and seated) and exercise intensity (control, medium intensity, and high intensity)) was performed to assess if baseline IOP measurements were comparable.
For the main analysis, we performed a repeated measures ANOVA for IOP (2 × 3 × 12), considering the body position (supine and seated), exercise intensity (control, medium intensity, and high intensity), and point of measure (baseline, repetitions 1–10, and recovery (a total of 12 measurements)) as within-participant factors. Multiple comparisons were performed, and they were corrected with the Holm–Bonferroni procedure. The magnitude of the changes was reported as Cohen’s d effect size (d) and partial eta squared (ηp2) for T and F tests, respectively. An alpha value of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The JASP statistics package (version 0.16.2) was used for statistical analyses.
Results
The normal distribution of the data and the homogeneity of variances were confirmed (all p-values > 0.05). The analysis of baseline IOP values showed statistically significant differences for the main factor “body position” (F1,22 = 47.85, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.69), with greater values in the supine than in the seated position. However, no differences were reached for the main factor “exercise intensity” or the interaction “body position × exercise intensity” (F2,44 = 2.67, p = 0.081; F2,44 = 1.38, p = 0.262; respectively).
The analysis of IOP showed statistically significant differences for the main effects of “body position” (F1,22 = 107.50, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.83), “exercise intensity” (F2,44 = 85.29, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.80), and “point of measure” (F2,44 = 38.34, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.64). Also, there were statistically significant differences for the interactions “body position × exercise intensity” (F2,44 = 29.44, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.57), “body position × point of measure” (F11,242 = 8.45, p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.11), “exercise intensity × point of measure” (F22,484 = 13.48, < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.38), and “body position × exercise intensity × point of measure” (F22,484 = 2.34, < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.10) (Fig. 2). Post hoc analyses revealed greater IOP values in the high-intensity condition in comparison to the medium-intensity and control conditions (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.17; and corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.72, respectively), as well as for the medium-intensity condition when compared to the control condition (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.54). Complementarily, we calculated the IOP change associated with exercise performance in supine and seated positions (Fig. 3).
Discussion
This study was designed to examine the influence of the body position adopted during the execution of the bench press exercise on IOP. Our data revealed a mediating effect of the body position on IOP behavior, obtaining greater IOP increments when the bench press was performed in the supine compared to the seated position. Additionally, and in agreement with previous studies, (i) IOP increased progressively over the course of the set [22], (ii) IOP increments were positively associated with exercise intensity [13, 14], and (iii) IOP returned to baseline values immediately after the cessation of the effort [29, 30]. Based on the current results, performing the dynamic bench press to or near to muscular failure, and especially while adopting a supine position, should be discouraged in individuals who need to minimize IOP increments. These findings may have important applications for exercise prescription in glaucoma patients or those at risk.
This is the first study that has explored during virtually the same exercise, bilateral upper-body push, the effect of the body position adopted during the execution of the exercise on IOP levels. Our preliminary hypothesis was confirmed because the supine bench press exercise caused greater IOP increments than the seated bench press exercise. As displayed in Fig. 2, the IOP peaks in the supine and seated positions were of approximately 26 and 20 mmHg, respectively, which evidence the possible clinical relevance of these differences. To our knowledge, this is the first investigation assessing the impact of the body position adopted during resistance training on IOP, although these results agree with previous studies using non-physical activities [16,17,18,19,20,21]. In line with previous studies [19,20,21], the baseline IOP differences between the seated and supine positions ranged from 1 to 3 mmHg. However, during the execution of the bench press exercise, the IOP differences between the supine and seated positions are greater during the physical effort in comparison to baseline conditions (average difference during 10 repetitions of ~ 5.5 mmHg vs. ~ 3 mmHg in baseline conditions). Based on the present outcomes, it is reasonable to prioritize the adoption of standing/seated positions instead of lying down for the execution of the bench press exercise when maintaining stable IOP levels is desired or necessary [31, 32].
Our data corroborate previous findings about the factors mediating the IOP response to resistance training. First, the execution of highly demanding physical effort is known to provoke an acute and transient IOP rise, which these changes being positively associated with the accumulated level of effort [22, 33]. In the current study, there was a linear IOP rise during exercise performance in the medium- and high-intensity conditions and while adopting both the seated and supine positions (coefficients of correlation (Pearson’s r) ranging from 0.75 to 0.93). Second, greater intensities (i.e., loads lifted) in resistance training are linked to more abrupt IOP increments [13,14,15, 22, 34,35,36,37], which is also observed in the present study. Lastly, these IOP effects have demonstrated to be transient, namely, IOP values return to baseline levels after a few seconds of exercise cessation [14, 29, 30, 33]. Here, we found that 10 s of passive recovery were enough to reach baseline IOP levels. This set of results supports that those studies designed to capture IOP changes as a function of exercise with a post-exercise measurement may underestimate the impact of exercise on IOP levels.
The physiological mechanisms responsible for the mediating effects of body position on the IOP response to resistance training cannot be ruled out from this investigation; however, there are several plausible explanations to these findings. The execution of highly demanding resistance training is accompanied by the Valsalva maneuver, which permits to enhance trunk stability [38]. Nevertheless, the hemodynamic changes linked to the Valsalva maneuver are also dependent on the body position adopted, with these differences being attributed to differences in intrathoracic blood volume and venous return [39]. In addition, the adoption of recumbent positions has been associated with an increased episcleral venous pressure and ocular tissues congestion, including the choroid (i.e., the most vascularized ocular tissue) [16, 18, 40]. All these factors may have contributed to the differences in the IOP response to dynamic resistance training in the seated and supine positions.
Limitations and future research
The findings of this study reveal that performing 10 repetitions of the bench press exercise leading to muscular failure caused greater IOP rises when performed in supine compared to seated position. Nevertheless, there are different factors that may limit the validity of these results, and they must be listed. First, several factors such as individuals’ fitness level [34, 41,42,43], type of exercise [30, 36], or participants’ sex [14, 44] have demonstrated to influence the IOP response to exercise, and thus, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution in this regard. Second, the experimental sample was formed by healthy young adults, and the physical capacity and physiological responsiveness to exercise in other populations (e.g., elderly subjects with chronic conditions) may be different [45]. Third, ocular hemodynamics in glaucoma patients after postural change is known to be altered [46], which support that further studies are needed to determine the IOP responsiveness to resistance training while adopting different body positions in glaucoma patients. Lastly, this work is limited to the acute effects of resistance training on IOP, and future studies should be designed to determine the long-term effects of exercise practice on glaucoma prevention and management.
Conclusions
The differences in IOP values between the supine and seated positions are accentuated during effort. There was a progressive IOP rise in both body positions, exercise intensity was positively associated with the magnitude of the IOP increment, and IOP returned to baseline levels immediately after exercise cessation. This set of findings support previous evidence on the IOP response to highly demanding resistance training, and incorporate novel insights into the mediating role of the body position adopted during the execution of resistance training exercises on IOP levels. Our results suggest that the adoption of a seated/standing position (instead of a supine/prone position) should be prioritized for maintaining more stable IOP levels, and may help to the management and prevention of glaucoma. The external validity of these results for glaucoma patients needs to be tested in future studies.
References
Pedersen BK, Saltin B (2015) Exercise as medicine - evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scand J Med Sci Sport 25:1–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12581
Warburton DER, Bredin SSD (2016) Reflections on physical activity and health: what should we recommend? Can J Cardiol 32:495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.024
Thornton JS, Frémont P, Khan K et al (2016) Physical activity prescription: a critical opportunity to address a modifiable risk factor for the prevention and management of chronic disease: a position statement by the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine. Br J Sports Med 50:1109–1114. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096291
Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY et al (2014) Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 121:2081–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
Reis TF, Paula JS, Furtado JM (2022) Primary glaucomas in adults: epidemiology and public health-a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 50:128–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14040
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman LKE (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121:48–56
Caprioli J, Coleman AL (2008) Intraocular pressure fluctuation: a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 115:1123–1129
De MoraesJuthani CGVVJ, Liebmann JM et al (2011) Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 129:562–568. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.72
Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J et al (2000) Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 9:134–142
Zhu MM, Lai JSM, Choy BNK et al (2018) Physical exercise and glaucoma: a review on the roles of physical exercise on intraocular pressure control, ocular blood flow regulation, neuroprotection and glaucoma-related mental health. Acta Ophthalmol 96:676–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13661
Janicijevic D, Redondo B, Jiménez R et al (2021) Intraocular pressure responses to walking with surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 259:2373–2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05159-3
Najmanova E, Pluhacek F, Botek M (2016) Intraocular pressure response to moderate exercise during 30-min recovery. Optom Vis Sci 93:281–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000794
Vera J, García-Ramos A, Jiménez R, Cárdenas D (2017) The acute effect of strength exercises at different intensities on intraocular pressure. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3735-5
Vera J, Raimundo J, García-Durán B, Pérez-Castilla A, Redondo B, Delgado G, ... García-Ramos A (2019) Acute intraocular pressure changes during isometric exercise and recovery: the influence of exercise type and intensity, and participant´s sex. J Sports Sci 37(19):2213–2219
Vaghefi E, Shon C, Reading S et al (2021) Intraocular pressure fluctuation during resistance exercise. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 6:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2021-000723
Prata TS, De MoraesKanadani CGVFN et al (2010) Posture-induced intraocular pressure changes: considerations regarding body position in glaucoma patients. Surv Ophthalmol 55:445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2009.12.002
Turner DC, Samuels BC, Huisingh C et al (2017) The magnitude and time course of IOP change in response to body position change in nonhuman primates measured using continuous IOP telemetry. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58:6232–6240. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22858
Malihi M, Sit AJ (2012) Effect of head and body position on intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 119:987–991
Sobczak M, Asejczyk M, Geniusz M (2022) Does body position, age, and heart rate induce IOP’s changes? Eur J Ophthalmol 32:1530–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211023313
Najmanova E, Pluhacek F, Haklova M (2019) Intraocular pressure response affected by changing of sitting and supine positions. Acta Ophthalmol 98(3):e368–e372
Vera J, Redondo B, Molina R et al (2020) Acute intraocular pressure responses to reading: the influence of body position. J Glaucoma 29:581–586
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B et al (2019) Effect of the level of effort during resistance training on intraocular pressure. Eur J Sport Sci 19:394–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1505959
Kang H (2021) Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof 18
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Badakere SV, Chary R, Choudhari NS et al (2021) Agreement of intraocular pressure measurement of Icare ic200 with Goldmann applanation tonometer in adult eyes with normal cornea. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 4:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2020.08.004
Nakakura S, Asaoka R, Terao E et al (2021) Evaluation of rebound tonometer iCare IC200 as compared with IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. Eye Vis 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00249-z
Rodriguez-Perea Á, Jerez-Mayorga D, García-Ramos A et al (2021) Reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer device for the assessment of movement velocity. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sport Eng Technol 235:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120984883
Sánchez-Sánchez AJ, Chirosa-Ríos LJ, Chirosa-Ríos IJ et al (2021) Test-retest reliability of a functional electromechanical dynamometer on swing eccentric hamstring exercise measures in soccer players. PeerJ 9:1–13. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11743
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B et al (2019) Investigating the immediate and cumulative effects of isometric squat exercise for different weight loads on intraocular pressure: a pilot study. Sports Health 11:247–253
Vera J, Redondo B, Koulieris GA et al (2020) Intraocular pressure responses to four different isometric exercises in men and women. Optom Vis Sci 97:648–653. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001545
Coleman AL, Miglior S (2008) Risk factors for glaucoma onset and progression. Surv Ophthalmol 53:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.006
De Moraes CG, Mansouri K, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2018) Association between 24-hour intraocular pressure monitored with contact lens sensor and visual field progression in older adults with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 10022:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1746
Bakke EF, Hisdal J, Semb SO (2009) Intraocular pressure increases in parallel with systemic blood pressure during isometric exercise. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:760–764. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.08-2508
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B, Cárdenas D, De Moraes CG, Garcia-Ramos A (2017) Intraocular pressure responses to maximal cycling sprints against different resistances: the influence of fitness level. J Glaucoma 26(10):881–887
Vera J, Redondo B, Molina R et al (2019) Influence of holding weights of different magnitudes on intraocular pressure and anterior eye biometrics. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:2233–2238
Rüfer F, Schiller J, Klettner A et al (2014) Comparison of the influence of aerobic and resistance exercise of the upper and lower limb on intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol 92:249–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12051
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B et al (2020) Impact of resistance training sets performed until muscular failure with different loads on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure. Eur J Ophthalmol 30:1342–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672119879838
Hackett DA, Chow C-M (2013) The Valsalva maneuver: its effect on intra-abdominal pressure and safety issues during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 27:2338–2345
Pstras L, Thomaseth K, Waniewski J et al (2016) The Valsalva manoeuvre: physiology and clinical examples. Acta Physiol 217:103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12639
Friberg TR, Sanborn GWR (1987) Intraocular and episcleral venous pressure increase during inverted posture. Am J Ophthalmol 103:523–526
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B et al (2019) Effect of a maximal treadmill test on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure: the mediating role of fitness level. Eur J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672119832840
Janicijevic D, Redondo B, Jiménez R et al (2022) The intraocular pressure lowering-effect of low-intensity aerobic exercise is greater in fitter individuals: a cluster analysis. Res Sport Med. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2022.2079987
Vera J, Jiménez R, Redondo B et al (2018) Fitness level modulates intraocular pressure responses to strength exercises. Curr Eye Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2018.1431289
Pérez-Castilla A, García-Ramos A, Redondo B, Andrés FR, Jiménez R, Vera J (2020) Determinant factors of intraocular pressure responses to a maximal isometric handgrip test: hand dominance, handgrip strength and sex. Curr Eye Res 46(1):64–70
Hoffmann TC, Maher CG, Briffa T et al (2016) Prescribing exercise interventions for patients with chronic conditions. CMAJ 188:510–518. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150684
Galambos P, Vafiadis J, Vilchez SE et al (2006) Compromised autoregulatory control of ocular hemodynamics in glaucoma patients after postural change. Ophthalmology 113:1832–1836
Funding
Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Granada/CBUA This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2021-127505NA-I00).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the University Institutional Review Board (IRB approval: 438/CEIH/2017).
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lara, P.M., Redondo, B., Jerez-Mayorga, D. et al. Influence of the body positions adopted for resistance training on intraocular pressure: a comparison between the supine and seated positions. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 261, 1971–1978 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06009-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06009-0