4.3 Article

Cardiovascular adaptations in rats submitted to a resistance-training model

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2005.04180.x

Keywords

cardiovascular system; myocardial hypertrophy; resistance training; weight lifting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. The present study sought to evaluate cardiovascular adaptations, such as blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and cardiac hypertrophy, to resistance training (RT) in a rat model. 2. The training protocol consisted of four sets of 10-12 repetitions of the squat exercise performed at 65-75% of one repetition maximum (1RM) over 4 weeks. Animals were randomly divided into three groups: control (n=8, CO), electrically stimulated (n=8, ES) and trained (n=8, TR; also electrically stimulated). Blood pressure and HR were measured by a direct method in conscious rats after the training period. 3. All groups began with similar 1RM and 1RM/bodyweight (BW) ratio, however, at the end of the protocol only the TR group was different from the beginning (56% and 50%, respectively; both P < 0.01). The CO and ES groups had similar values for cardiac chambers weight/BW ratio, HR and diastolic, systolic and mean BP. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) determined by the left ventricle (LV) weight/BW ratio was increased in the TR group (12%) when compared to CO (P < 0.01) or ES groups (P < 0.01). No changes were found in the weights of the atrium or right ventricle. Diastolic (14%) and mean BP (13%) were lower in the TR group (P < 0.05), whereas systolic BP and HR remained unchanged. 4. Collectively these results demonstrate that the rat RT model used is associated with significant development of cardiac hypertrophy and lowering of resting BP. These cardiovascular adaptations seem to a result of the training exercise and not influenced by stress since circulating catecholamine levels and adrenal gland weights remained unchanged in all groups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available