Functional Cardiovascular Changes In Response To Altered Pressure And Volume Stimuli In Elite Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac adaptations in response to chronic exercise training are attributed to repetitive pressure and/or volume overload. Sprint/strength athletes are more exposed to pressure overloads while endurance athletes are more exposed to volume overloads. Consequently, the athlete’s heart phenotype can vary based on competition distance and/or sport modality. Recent research has examined whether there are differences in how the heart responds to pressure and volume stimuli in land-based strength and endurance-trained adults. This study sought to extend these observations to elite swimmers that vary in competition distance. PURPOSE: To determine if left ventricular systolic and diastolic function responded differently to pressure and volume stimuli in short-distance (SD) and long-distance (LD) elite swimmers. METHODS: Swimmers were grouped as SD (n = 32, 26% female, 23 ± 4 years, events ≤400 m) and LD (n = 11, 36% female, 22 ± 3 years, events ≥800 m). Echocardiography images were captured in the left lateral decubitus position at rest and during a pressure [submaximal isometric handgrip (IHG)], and volume (seated position) stimulus. Images were analyzed to determine systolic (heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output) and diastolic [peak early transmitral (E) and mitral annular (E’) velocities, and E/E’] function. The change in each variable during the two stimuli relative to rest was calculated (ΔIHG = IHG-rest; ΔSEAT = seated-rest) and compared between groups using Mann-Whitney U tests with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Data are presented as “median, interquartile range”. The ΔIIHG and ΔSEAT for all systolic and diastolic variables were similar between groups; however, ΔIHG E and E/E’ were trending (both P = 0.07). LD increased ΔIHG E (8.3, -3.3-20.0 cm/s) while SD decreased ΔIHG E (-6.7, -17.0-6.3 cm/s). LD also increased ΔIHG E/E’ (0.95, -0.31-1.58) while SD experienced a small reduction in ΔIHG E/E’(-0.03, -0.51-0.73). CONCLUSION: These preliminary results indicate that, regardless of competition distance, left ventricular function in SD and LD swimmers responds similarly to changes in pressure and volume. Additional investigation is warranted, however, to further examine the divergent changes in diastolic function in response to a pressure stimulus in these athletes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".