Mechanical and Structural Remodeling of Cardiac Muscle after Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Training in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aerobic and resistance exercise training results in distinct structural changes of the heart. The mechanics of how cardiac cells adapt to resistance training and the benefits to cells when combining aerobic and resistance exercise remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare mechanical adaptations of skinned cardiac fiber bundles after chronic resistance, aerobic and combined exercise training in rats. We hypothesized that differences in mechanical function on the fiber bundle level coincide with differences previously reported in the structure of the heart. METHOD: Twelve-week-old rats were assigned to (i) an aerobic running group (n = 6), (ii) a ladder climbing resistance group (n = 6), (iii) a combination group subjected to aerobic and resistance training (n = 6), or (iv) a sedentary (control) group (n = 5). Echocardiography was used to measure cardiac structural remodeling. Skinned cardiac fiber bundles were used to determine active and passive force properties, maximal shortening velocity, and calcium sensitivity. RESULTS: Aerobically trained animals had 43%-49% greater ventricular volume and myocardial thickness, and a 4%-17% greater shortening velocity and calcium sensitivity compared with control group rats. Resistance-trained rats had 37%-71% thicker ventricular walls, a 56% greater isometric force production, a 9% greater shortening velocity, and a 4% greater calcium sensitivity compared with control group rats. The combination exercise-trained rats had 25%-43% greater ventricular volume and myocardial wall thickness, a 55% greater active force production, a 7% greater shortening velocity, and a 60% greater cross-bridge cooperativity compared with control group rats. CONCLUSIONS: The heart adapts differently to each exercise modality, and a combination of aerobic and resistance training may have the greatest benefit for cardiac health and performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".