Journal of Applied Physiology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 64: 2552-2557, 1988;
8750-7587/88 $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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roy, A.
Right arrow Articles by Landry, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roy, A.
Right arrow Articles by Landry, F.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 64, Issue 6 2552-2557, Copyright © 1988 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

Endurance vs. strength training: comparison of cardiac structures using normal predicted values

A. Roy, M. Doyon, J. G. Dumesnil, J. Jobin and F. Landry
Quebec Heart Institute, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.

There are still disagreements concerning the adaptation of cardiac structures in relation to different training stimuli. To eliminate some of the variance due to individual differences in body surface area, we utilized a new approach based on the calculation of the percentages of each individual's normal predicted values (%NPV). We studied 46 strength (S, bodybuilders) and 57 endurance (E, runners) athletes. Left ventricular (LV) mass was 143.8 +/- 21.9 %NPV (mean +/- SD) in E vs. 134.3 +/- 23.4 %NPV in S (P less than 0.05), and LV volume was 131.0 +/- 24.0 %NPV in E vs. 120.0 +/- 25.5 %NPV in S (P less than 0.05). Moreover, the LV wall thickness-to-radius ratio did not differ from normal values in either group. From these data we conclude that 1) cardiac modifications are greater in E than S, 2) the predominant stimulus is a volume overload type in both groups, and 3) concentric LV hypertrophy may not be as prevalent in S as previously suggested.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
A. L. Baggish, F. Wang, R. B. Weiner, J. M. Elinoff, F. Tournoux, A. Boland, M. H. Picard, A. M. Hutter Jr., and M. J. Wood
Training-specific changes in cardiac structure and function: a prospective and longitudinal assessment of competitive athletes
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2008; 104(4): 1121 - 1128.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
B. M. Pluim, A. H. Zwinderman, A. van der Laarse, and E. E. van der Wall
The Athlete’s Heart : A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Structure and Function
Circulation, January 25, 2000; 101(3): 336 - 344.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
A. Pelliccia, F. Culasso, F. M. Di Paolo, and B. J. Maron
Physiologic Left Ventricular Cavity Dilatation in Elite Athletes
Ann Intern Med, January 5, 1999; 130(1): 23 - 31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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