4.4 Article

Left ventricular mass in elite olympic weight lifters

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 7, Pages 1177-1180

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.05.036

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The existence of resistance training-induced left ventricular (LV) concentric hypertrophy is equivocal. Although some have described significant LV hypertrophy, others have suggested that training-induced LV hypertrophy is proportional to increased fat free mass (FFM) and thus a normal physiologic response to training. Method limitations, steroid use, and type of training may contribute to discrepant findings. Thus, LV structure and volumes are determined using magnetic resonance imaging. Body composition was determined using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in 9 elite Olympic weight lifters and 10 age- and weight-matched recreationally active controls. LV structure and volumes were determined by acquiring 6 short- and 3 long-axis magnetic resonance imaging scans of the left ventricle, whereas LV wall thickness was defined as the average of 6 midventricular segment thickness measurements. Weight lifters had the same age, weight, and FFM, but were shorter and had a greater body mass index than controls. LV mass was not different in weight lifters and controls, but was lower in weight lifters when indexed to FFM (2.56 +/- 0.07 vs 2.30 +/- 0.05, p = 0.01). LV mass correlated with FFM (r = 0.49, p = 0.04). However, LV mass was lower in weight lifters for a given FFM. LV wall thickness, as well as end-diastolic, end-systolic, and stroke volumes, were not different between groups. In conclusion, these results refute the hypothesis that resistance training induces LV concentric hypertrophy and suggest that Olympic weight lifting is associated with increases in FFM without a concomitant increase in LV mass. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available