Journal of Applied Physiology  AJP: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 52: 1648-1651, 1982;
8750-7587/82 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anholm, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Anholm, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt, D. H.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 52, Issue 6 1648-1651, Copyright © 1982 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Effect of habitual exercise on left ventricular response to exercise

J. D. Anholm, C. Foster, J. Carpenter, M. L. Pollock, C. K. Hellman and D. H. Schmidt

To evaluate the effects of chronic physical exercise on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ejection rate (LVER), radionuclide angiography was performed at rest and during upright-bicycle exercise in 45 healthy men. The subjects varied widely in exercise habits and working capacity. They were divided into three subgroups on the basis of habitual physical activity. Aerobic training was done more than 7, 2-4, and less than 1 h/wk by subgroups of athletes, trained, and untrained men, respectively. The results indicate marked differences in work capacity (298, 233, and 181 W in the athletes, trained, and untrained groups, respectively). Resting LVEF (72, 69, and 68%) and LVER (4.1, 3.4, and 3.6 s-1) were not significantly different among the groups. With maximal exercise, however, small but statistically significant differences in LVEF (75, 69, and 68%; P less than 0.05 athletes vs. trained and athletes vs. untrained) and in LVER (7.5, 6.3, and 5.2 s-1; P less than 0.05 among all groups) were observed. Work capacity was, however, poorly correlated with exercise LVEF (r = 0.18) and LVER (r = 0.47). The results of this study indicate that the enhanced working capacity observed secondary to increases in habitual physical activity can be attributed to differences in LVEF and LVER only in the most general terms. Accordingly the results agree with previous suggestions based primarily on echocardiographic data that the primary cardiac adaptation to exercise is dimensional rather than functional in character.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online