Unaltered left ventricular mechanics and remodelling after 12 weeks of resistance exercise training – a longitudinal study in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous longitudinal studies suggest that left ventricular (LV) structure is unaltered with resistance exercise training (RT) in young men. However, evidence from aerobic exercise training suggests that early changes in functional LV wall mechanics may occur prior to and independently of changes in LV size, although short-term changes in LV mechanics and structural remodelling in response to RT protocols have not been reported. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of RT on LV mechanics in healthy men performing 2 different time-under-tension protocols. Forty recreationally trained men (age: 23 ± 3 years) were randomized into 12 weeks of whole-body higher-repetition RT (20–25 repetitions/set to failure at ∼30%–50% 1 repetition maximum (1RM); n = 13), lower-repetition RT (8–12 repetitions/set to failure at ∼75%–90% 1RM; n = 13), or an active control period (n = 14). Speckle tracking echocardiography was performed at baseline and following the intervention period. Neither RT program altered standard measures of LV volumes (end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, or ejection fraction; P > 0.05) or indices of LV mechanics (total LV twist, untwisting rate, twist-to-shortening ratio, untwisting-to-twist ratio, or longitudinal strain; P > 0.05). This is the first longitudinal study to assess both LV size and mechanics after RT in healthy men, suggesting a maintenance of LV size and twist mechanics despite peripheral muscle adaptations to the training programs. These results provide no evidence for adverse LV structural or functional remodelling in response to RT in young men and support the positive role of RT in the maintenance of optimal cardiovascular function, even with strenuous RT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".