Functional resistance training effects on echocardiographic parameters in NAFLD patients
stroke
STROKE
On the post-test, there was a significant difference between the average LVESd of the control and test groups (p-value = 0.04). In contrast, there was no significant difference between the average LVESd pre-test and post-test in the control and test groups. There was a significant difference in post-test scores between the control and test groups, indicating that functional resistance training significantly improved the systolic function of the heart (Table Functional resistance training on the echocardiographic parameters.Left ventricle during end-systole dimensions (LVESd, cm), left ventricle during end-diastole dimensions (LVEDd, cm), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVVs, mL), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVVd, mL), stroke volume (SV, mL), cardiac outputs (CO, mL/min), fractional shortening (FS, %), ejection fraction (EF, %).Data are presented as means ± SD.Effects of functional resistance training on echocardiographic parameters in the studied groups. The control group did not receive any intervention, but the test group did functional resistance training group 24 sessions over 8 weeks 3 sessions per week at a local gym. (The difference in pre- and post-test mean LVEDd between the control and test groups was not statistically significant. In addition, there was no difference in the average diastolic function of the heart between the pre-test and post-test in the control group, whereas this difference was significant (p-value = 0.04) in the test group. According to Fig. The assumption that the pre-test and post-test LVVd levels were identical was not significant. The average value of the LVVs variable did not differ significantly between the control and test groups in either the pre-test or the post-test. In addition, there was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test in the control group, whereas the difference in the average LVVd between the pre-test and post-test in the test group was significant (p-value = 0.001) (Table Significantly (p-value = 0.001), the supposition of mean SV equality between the pre-test and post-test in the test group is rejected. Consequently, it can be stated that resistance functional training had a substantial impact on SV (Table The average CO difference between the pre-test and post-test groups in the test group was statistically significant (p-value = 0.001), indicating that functional resistance training had a significant effect on the CO variable (Table At the pre-test, there was no significant difference in the average FS between the test and control groups; however, at the post-test, there was a significant difference (p-value = 0.01). In addition, the mean difference between the pre-test and post-test was not significant in the control group, whereas it was significant in the test group (p-value = 0.03) (Table Before the post-test, there was no significant difference in the average EF between the two test and control groups, but after the post-test, there was a significant difference (p-value = 0.04). In addition, the mean difference between the pre-test and post-test in the control group was not significant, whereas this difference was significant in the test group (p-value = 0/004) (Table 