Abstract 12093: Bi-Ventricular Cardiac Adaptations to 20 Weeks of High-Intensity Resistance Training in Healthy Untrained Men: A 3D Echocardiography Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The historical description of cardiac remodelling between strength and endurance athletes, made by Morganroth in the 1970s, has been challenged with the advancements in our understanding of the protective effect of Valsalva manoeuvres and the emergence of sophisticated imaging techniques for cardiac function assessment. Objective: We aimed to analyze the kinetics of muscular and cardiac responses to 20 weeks of high-intensity resistance training in healthy untrained volunteers. Methods: A total of 27 young and healthy men with an average age of 22.8±3.2 years participated in a 20-week strength training program. The training program intensity was guided by 1-Repetition Maximum (RM) testing. Before and after 12 and 20 weeks of training, participants were assessed using body composition analysis, electrocardiogram, 3D transthoracic echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing ( V O 2peak ), and muscle isokinetic dynamometry. Anova was utilized to analyse time effect. Results: Among the initial cohort, 22 subjects completed the study protocol. Arterial blood pressure significantly decreased at both time points. Isokinetic evaluation confirmed increases in maximal strength for quadriceps (Δ 0-20wk =+46.8Nm, P<0.001), hamstrings (Δ 0-20wk =+25.3Nm, P=0.025), triceps (Δ 0-20wk =+11.6Nm, P=0.005), and biceps (Δ 0-20wk =+9.2Nm, P=0.023). Regarding cardiac analysis, after 20 weeks of training 3D left ventricular (LV) mass increased (120.1±15.4 to 133.7±16.3 g, P=0.018), with an augmentation in both septal wall (6.1±1.1 to 7.2±1.4 mm, P=0.027) and posterior wall thickness (5.5±1.3 to 7.1±1.3 mm, P<0.001). 3D LV end-diastolic volume increased by 7.28% without reaching a significant difference. Right ventricular (RV) wall thickness also increased (3.33±0.73 to 3.89±0.8 mm, P=0.04), with a slight non-significant augmentation of 3D RV end-diastolic volume by 7.89%. No significant changes were found in LV and RV systolic or diastolic function. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that our 20-week high-intensity strength training program resulted in a rapid and significant increase in muscular strength. The cardiac response to strength training showed a moderate biventricular response like that of endurance athlete
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".