Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining on myocardial adaptations. Methods: Twenty male none- athlete students were volunteered and divided randomly into aerobic continuous (n= 10) and aerobic interval group (n=10). Subjects participated in an 8-week running program (3 day/week, at 70% HRmax). Continuous group ran continuously 45 min and interval group ran five nine- min periods with a four– min inactive rest between the work periods. After 8-week of training, subjects completed 4-week detraining. Paired sample t-test was used for analyzing data. Results: Using echocardiography, no significant difference was found in EDD, ESD, %FS, %EF, PWT, LA, AO, HR, SBP and DBP after 8-week continuous and interval training compared to before training (P>0.05), but a significant difference was found in IVS (p<0.05). No significant difference was found in EDD, ESD, %FS, %EF, PWT, LA, AO, HR, SBP and DBP after 4-week detraining compared to 8-week continuous and interval training (P>0.05), but a significant difference was found in IVS (p<0.05). Conclusion: Aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining can affect on myocardial adaptations equally.
(2010). Comparing the effect of aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining on cardiac hypertrophy and atrophy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 3(2), -. doi: 10.48308/joeppa.2010.98592
MLA
. "Comparing the effect of aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining on cardiac hypertrophy and atrophy", Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 3, 2, 2010, -. doi: 10.48308/joeppa.2010.98592
HARVARD
(2010). 'Comparing the effect of aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining on cardiac hypertrophy and atrophy', Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 3(2), pp. -. doi: 10.48308/joeppa.2010.98592
VANCOUVER
Comparing the effect of aerobic continuous and interval training and detraining on cardiac hypertrophy and atrophy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 2010; 3(2): -. doi: 10.48308/joeppa.2010.98592