Albert SL wrote:
The article doesn't distinguish between eccentric heart hypertrophy and concentric heart hypertrophy. High intensity training leads to concentric heart hypertrophy, the size of the left ventricle doesn't increase. With eccentric heart hypertrophy the left ventricle size increases.
It takes a lot of low intensity volume for eccentric heart hypertrophy to take place. Elite cyclists and cross-country skiers, athletes who do lot of low intensity training, tend to have the biggest left ventricles.
The below article speaks of this matter. The PDF file can be viewed for free without becoming a member.
(PDF) Eccentric and concentric cardiac hypertrophy induced by exercise training: MicroRNAs and molecular determinants (researchgate.net)
This thread is interesting, but kind of weird. Sorry for bumping but I feel like I'm on crazy pills
Everyone is saying "yeah no one thought slow running was for stroke volume or changes at the cardiac level " etc.
"This does not mean that low heart rate running is useless. Its good tolerance allows for higher volumes of running, which results in increased basic endurance, from the muscle recapillarization, strengthening of muscles, bones, joints and ligaments to dilated myocardial hypertrophy and brain and fatigue resistance, but increased myocardial contractility is not in the list. This means that you still have to run fast to race faster, so, in my opinion, the marketing slogan “run slow to race faster” is misleading. Rather, it seems to me that Peter Coe was right when he said: “Long slow distance makes you a long slow runner.”
Doesn't the bolded literally state that the hearts chamber size / LV gets larger in volume, which affects stroke volume? It just doesn't increase the force of the pump.
Why are people saying A) it does nothing for the heart and B) more practically, suggesting that cross training low intensity is only beneficial for the peripheral adaptations of the muscles?
Like in a rush to (correctly)defend slow running, people started making stuff up. Aside from the person I replied to that got it right, and just missed that it was already stated in the paper