Key result
Long-distance running is linked to ~47% lower resting energy metabolism versus ordinary students.
Why the study?
The effects of different track and field events on human cardiovascular function and physiological energy metabolism were not well characterized.
Does track and field training improve cardiovascular function and energy metabolism compared to ordinary students?
Cross-Sectional (n=42)
No
Does track and field training improve cardiovascular function and energy metabolism compared to ordinary students?
Track and field training, particularly long-distance running, is associated with significant adaptations in body shape, cardiovascular function, and energy metabolism compared to the general population.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of different track and field events on human cardiovascular function and physiological energy metabolism. METHOD: max) were evaluated using a Stepwise Increasing Load Test (SILT). The two factor repeated measures ANOVA method was used to analyze the effects of different load levels and groups on cardiopulmonary function and energy metabolism. RESULT: The weight, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure of different populations were not statistically significant in a quiet state (p > 0.05). The waist to hip ratios of the short-distance and long-distance running teams were 0.75 ± 0.03 and 0.76 ± 0.03, respectively, which showed significant differences compared to ordinary students (p < 0.05). There was also a significant difference in heart rate between different track and field teams and ordinary students in a quiet state (p < 0.05). The termination load of different track and field teams varied, with the long-distance running team having the highest load (p < 0.01), followed by the jumping team. Compared with ordinary students, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the termination heart rate among the sprinting, long-distance, and jumping teams. However, there was p > 0.05 in the systolic blood pressure index among the four groups of subjects. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in diastolic blood pressure between sprinting and jumping teams and ordinary students. In a quiet state, the energy metabolism of long-distance running teams, sprinting teams, jumping teams, and ordinary students was 1.52 ± 0.64, 1.81 ± 0.91, 1.86 ± 0.87, and 2.87 ± 0.96, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a quiet state, there are significant differences in body shape and function between different track and field training teams and the general population. In a quantitative load state, long-distance runners have the strongest adaptability to load.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jing et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=42). Track and field sports training (long-distance running, sprinting, jumping) vs. Ordinary students without specialized track and field training was evaluated on Energy metabolism in a quiet state (p=<0.01). Long-distance runners demonstrated the strongest adaptability to quantitative load and significantly lower resting energy metabolism compared to ordinary students.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: