MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387893602 · doi:10.2196/47876

Effects of a 20-Week High-Intensity Strength Training Program on Muscle Strength Gain and Cardiac Adaptation in Untrained Men: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Longitudinal Study

2023· article· en· W4387893602 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicolas Pamart, Joffrey Drigny, Hélène Azambourg, Marion Remilly, Maxime Macquart, Alexandre Lefèvre, Kamal Lahjaily, Jean‐Jacques Parienti, Amélia Rocamora, Henri Guermont, Antoine Desvergée, Pierre Ollitrault, François Tournoux, Éric Saloux, Hervé Normand, Emmanuel Reboursière, Antoine Gauthier, Amir Hodžić

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersRégion NormandieSociété Française de Cardiologie
KeywordsMedicineStrength trainingIsometric exercisePhysical therapyCalisthenicsBioelectrical impedance analysisGrip strengthEndurance trainingAthletic trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As strength sports gain popularity, there is a growing need to explore the impact of sustained strength training on cardiac biventricular structure and function, an area that has received less attention compared to the well-established physiological cardiac adaptation to endurance training. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to implement a 20-week high-intensity strength training program to enhance maximal muscle strength and evaluate its impact on cardiac biventricular adaptation in healthy, untrained men. METHODS: A total of 27 healthy and untrained young men (mean age 22.8, SD 3.2 years) participated in a strength training program designed to increase muscle strength. The training program involved concentric, eccentric, and isometric exercise phases, conducted over a consecutive 20-week time frame with a frequency of 3 weekly training sessions. Participants were evaluated before and after 12 and 20 weeks of training through body composition analysis (bioelectrical impedance), a 12-lead resting electrocardiogram, 3D transthoracic echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and muscle isokinetic dynamometry. The progression of strength training loads was guided by 1-repetition maximum (RM) testing during the training program. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort, 22 participants completed the study protocol. No injuries were reported. The BMI (mean 69.8, SD 10.8 kg/m² vs mean 72, SD 11 kg/m²; P=.72) and the fat mass (mean 15.3%, SD 7.5% vs mean 16.5%, SD 7%; P=.87) remained unchanged after training. The strength training program led to significant gains in 1-RM exercise testing as early as 4 weeks into training for leg extension (mean 69.6, SD 17.7 kg vs mean 96.5, SD 31 kg; P<.001), leg curl (mean 43.2, SD 9.7 kg vs mean 52.8, SD 13.4 kg; P<.001), inclined press (mean 174.1, SD 41.1 kg vs mean 229.2, SD 50.4 kg; P<.001), butterfly (mean 26.3, SD 6.2 kg vs mean 32.5, SD 6.6 kg; P<.001), and curl biceps on desk (mean 22.9, SD 5.2 kg vs mean 29.6, SD 5.2 kg; P<.001). After 20 weeks, the 1-RM leg curl, bench press, pullover, butterfly, leg extension, curl biceps on desk, and inclined press showed significant mean percentage gains of +40%, +41.1%, +50.3%, +63.5%, +80.1%, +105%, and +106%, respectively (P<.001). Additionally, the isokinetic evaluation confirmed increases in maximal strength for the biceps (+9.2 Nm), triceps (+11.6 Nm), quadriceps (+46.8 Nm), and hamstrings (+25.3 Nm). In this paper, only the training and muscular aspects are presented; the cardiac analysis will be addressed separately. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a short-term high-intensity strength training program was successful in achieving significant gains in muscle strength among previously untrained young men. We intend to use this protocol to gain a better understanding of the impact of high-intensity strength training on cardiac physiological remodeling, thereby providing new insights into the cardiac global response in strength athletes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04187170; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04187170.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207