Key result
Monofin swimming was associated with concentric myocardial hypertrophy (relative wall thickness 0.46 cm) compared to eccentric hypertrophy in bifin swimmers (0.39 cm, p<0.05).
Why the study?
Does monofin versus bifin swimming style training affect echocardiographic parameters of myocardial hypertrophy in adolescent female finswimmers?
Cross-Sectional (n=43)
Does monofin versus bifin swimming style training affect echocardiographic parameters of myocardial hypertrophy in adolescent female finswimmers?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.46% vs 0.39%
p-value: p=<0.05
Adolescent female finswimmers exhibit different patterns of myocardial hypertrophy (concentric vs eccentric) depending on the use of monofin versus bifin training equipment.
Monofin training may influence hypertrophy patterns in adolescent finswimmers; hypothesis-generating observation requires prospective validation before clinical consideration.
Background: The purpose of our study was to investigate early differences in the adolescent female finswimmers’ echocardiography parameters, possibly associated with different swimming-style training and different training equipment (monofin (MF) versus bifin (BF)). Method: Forty-three female finswimmers participated in our study (age: 15.6 ± 2.1 years, body mass index: 20.4 ± 2.2 kg/m2, body surface area: 1.56 ± 0.04 m2, body fat: 11.2 ± 0.6%) and were divided into two groups, according to the swimming style practiced (MF vs BF). Anthropometric characteristics, echocardiography and arterial pressure were measured. The independent t-test was used for statistical comparisons between groups. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis was applied to investigate associations between various variables. Results: The two groups used training equipment with different weights (p < 0.001). Female adolescent finswimmers presented signs of myocardial hypertrophy depicted by the increased left ventricle myocardial mass indexed to body surface area (101.34 ± 23.65). Different patterns of myocardial hypertrophy were observed for the two groups; MF swimmers presented concentric hypertrophy, while BF swimmers presented eccentric hypertrophy (relative wall thickness MF = 0.46 ± 0.08 vs BF = 0.39 ± 0.06 cm, p < 0.05). MF swimmers had also higher left ventricular posterior wall diameters (p < 0.05), lower stroke volume values (p < 0.05) and lower ejection fraction (p < 0.05) compared to BF athletes. Conclusion: Adolescent female finswimmers presented different patterns of myocardial hypertrophy possibly related to different training protocols and modes of exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stavrou et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adolescent female finswimmers (n=43). Monofin swimming vs. Bifin swimming was evaluated on Relative wall thickness (p=<0.05). Monofin swimming was associated with concentric myocardial hypertrophy (relative wall thickness 0.46 cm) compared to eccentric hypertrophy in bifin swimmers (0.39 cm, p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: