Left Ventricular Dimensions and Diastolic Function Are Different in Throwers, Endurance Athletes, and Sprinters From the World Masters Athletics Championships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy whether a lifetime of heavy resistance training, providing pressure-overload, is harmful for left ventricular function. We compared left ventricular dimensions and function in elite Masters athletes involved in throwing events (requiring strength; n = 21, seven females, 60 ± 14 years) to those involved in endurance events ( n = 65, 25 females, 59 ± 10 years) and sprinting ( n = 68, 21 females, 57 ± 13 years) at the 2018 World Masters Athletic Championships. Left ventricular dimensions and function were assessed with B-mode ultrasound and Doppler. The ratio of left ventricular early diastolic peak filling velocity to peak velocity during atrial contraction (E/A) across the mitral valve and the ratio of E to velocity of the E-wave (E’) across the lateral and septal mitral annulus (E/E’) were used as indexes of left ventricular diastolic function. Intra-ventricular septal wall thickness was greater in throwers compared to sprinters (11.9 ± 2.2 vs. 10.3 ± 2.3 mm; p = 0.01). Left ventricular end diastolic diameter/body surface area was higher in endurance athletes and sprinters vs. throwers (25.2 ± 3.0, 24.3 ± 3.1, and 22.0 ± 3.1 mm/m 2 , respectively, p < 0.01). The E/A was higher in endurance athletes and sprinters vs. throwers (1.35 ± 0.40, 1.37 ± 0.43, and 1.05 ± 0.41, respectively; p < 0.01). The E/E’ was lower in endurance athletes and sprinters vs. throwers (6.9 ± 1.8, 6.6 ± 1.9, and 8.1 ± 1.9, respectively, p < 0.05). Compared to age-matched historical controls ( n > 1,000; E/A = 1.06; E/E’ = 7.5), left ventricular diastolic function was not different in throwers, but superior in endurance athletes and sprinters ( p < 0.01). Masters throwers have altered left ventricular dimensions and function vs. other athletes, but a lifetime of heavy resistance training does not appear to alter left ventricular function compared to age-matched controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".