Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Bodybuilders: Athletic Adaptation, Drug Effect, or Heart Disease?

Lire la version française de cet article.

NutriCellScience Institute article — updated September 3,
2026

In a bodybuilder, a more muscular left ventricle does not have a
single meaning. It may reflect a proportionate response to training,
undiagnosed hypertension, a high body mass, obstructive sleep apnea, a
cardiomyopathy unrelated to sport, or the toxicity of supraphysiological
anabolic-androgenic steroid exposure. The clinically useful question is
therefore not simply, “Is the wall thick?”, but rather: Why is
it thick, how well does the heart function, and are there markers of
myocardial injury?

Medical information. This article does not replace a
medical consultation or the individualized interpretation of an
electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or cardiac MRI. Chest pain,
exertional syncope, unusual shortness of breath, sustained palpitations,
or an unexplained decline in performance warrants prompt medical
assessment. Non-medical anabolic-androgenic steroid use carries serious
risks; no self-monitoring strategy makes it safe.

Key points

• Drug-free resistance training may moderately increase left
  ventricular mass, usually with balanced changes in chamber size and
  preserved systolic and diastolic function.
• Wall thickness or cardiac mass alone cannot reliably distinguish an
  athlete’s heart from pathological left ventricular hypertrophy
  (LVH).
• Resting and ambulatory blood pressure, ventricular geometry and
  function, myocardial strain, the ECG, clinical history, and—when
  appropriate—cardiac MRI provide more information than a single
  measurement.
• Supraphysiological anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are associated
  with increased left ventricular mass, frequently concentric hypertrophy,
  and impaired systolic and diastolic function. Cumulative exposure
  matters.
• Some abnormalities arising during a short AAS cycle may regress
  after discontinuation. Following prolonged exposure, recovery may be
  incomplete: “reversible” does not mean harmless or guaranteed.
• Hypertension, obesity or extreme weight gain, obstructive sleep
  apnea, stimulants, and other performance-enhancing drugs may compound
  the risk.
• The clinical objective is not to automatically prohibit resistance
  training, but to identify the cause of LVH, address modifiable factors,
  and tailor exercise to the person’s actual cardiovascular profile.

1. The clinical question

Bodybuilding differs from many sports because it may combine high
resistance-training volumes, sets taken close to failure, repeated
Valsalva maneuvers, a high body mass, bulking phases, rapid weight
changes, high-sodium or high-energy diets, sleep disruption, stimulants,
and—among some athletes—performance-enhancing drugs.

These exposures are neither universal nor equivalent. Treating all
bodybuilders as one group leads to two opposite errors: dismissing
cardiomyopathy as an “athlete’s heart,” or pathologizing a physiological
adaptation in an asymptomatic athlete.

A sound assessment addresses four dimensions:

1. Morphology: Is there greater wall thickness, mass,
   chamber volume, or concentric remodeling?
2. Function: Are contraction, relaxation, myocardial
   strain, and the response to exercise preserved?
3. Context: What are the athlete’s blood pressure,
   body mass, sleep-apnea risk, drug exposure, family history, and
   symptoms?
4. Myocardial tissue: Does cardiac MRI show fibrosis
   or another pathological signature?

2. NutriCellScience
Institute methodology

This review prioritizes professional-society guidance, prospective
cohorts, studies comparing AAS users with non-using resistance-trained
controls, echocardiographic and cardiac MRI investigations, and large
morbidity and mortality cohorts. Case reports are useful for identifying
safety signals, but cannot quantify an individual’s risk.

Evidence grades used in
this article

Grade	Interpretation
A	Supported by professional guidance and/or several concordant human studies, including large cohorts
B	Consistent prospective or comparative human evidence, but with limited sample size or follow-up
C	Cross-sectional studies, mechanistic evidence, or heterogeneous findings
D	Case series, extrapolation, or expert opinion
E	Unproven hypothesis or marketing claim

The grade reflects confidence in the statement, not the potential
severity of the outcome.

3. What
resistance training actually does to the heart

3.1 Predominantly
transient pressure stress

During a heavy set, contracting muscle compresses blood vessels,
peripheral resistance rises, and the Valsalva maneuver causes major
changes in intrathoracic pressure. Historical invasive measurements
recorded extremely high blood-pressure peaks during maximal lifts. These
peaks are brief and depend on the load, amount of muscle recruited, set
duration, and breathing technique. They must not be confused with a
person’s usual resting blood pressure.

Repeated exposure to this afterload may contribute to cardiac
remodeling. However, the traditional claim that all strength training
inevitably produces substantial concentric hypertrophy is too
simplistic. The response depends on training design, athletic level,
dynamic exercise volume, resting blood pressure, body size, and drug
exposure.

3.2
In drug-free trainees: usually a proportionate adaptation

A 2025 longitudinal study followed previously untrained young men
through 20 weeks of high-intensity resistance training. Mean left
ventricular mass rose from 120.1 to 133.7 g, alongside modest, balanced
enlargement of both ventricles. No participant developed a wall
thickness greater than 11 mm, and systolic and diastolic function
remained unchanged. Only 22 participants completed the study, but its
prospective design documented change caused by a defined period of
training rather than a simple difference between pre-existing groups (Pamart et al.,
2025).

The study supports an essential distinction: an increase in
myocardial mass is not necessarily pathological LVH.
Physiological remodeling tends to be proportionate, with chamber size
suited to cardiac output, preserved function, and no evidence of
pathological scar or inherited disease.

Evidence specifically involving elite natural bodybuilders remains
limited. Drug-free status can be difficult to verify, sample sizes are
often small, and results in young men cannot automatically be
extrapolated to women, masters athletes, people with hypertension, or
extremely heavy competitors.

NCS conclusion: resistance training alone can
remodel the heart, but by itself it does not adequately explain marked
hypertrophy accompanied by dysfunction. Grade B.

4. Why a
bodybuilder is not merely a “strength athlete”

Cardiovascular risk commonly reflects several interacting exposures
rather than one isolated cause.

4.1 Body mass and bulking
phases

High lean mass increases circulatory demand and influences cardiac
mass. Excess adiposity more often adds hypertension, insulin resistance,
systemic inflammation, increased blood volume, and obstructive sleep
apnea. Indexing left ventricular mass to body surface area can even
underestimate abnormality in obesity. Body size must therefore be
considered without automatically explaining away every high value.

4.2 Resting or masked
hypertension

An occasional normal reading does not exclude hypertension. Blood
pressure may be elevated at home, overnight, or on training days.
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring or structured home monitoring is
especially useful when echocardiography shows concentric remodeling,
clinic readings vary, or there is exposure to AAS or stimulants.

4.3 Obstructive sleep apnea

A large neck circumference, weight gain, airway obstruction, snoring,
daytime sleepiness, or unrefreshing sleep should raise suspicion.
Intermittent hypoxia, sympathetic surges, and nocturnal blood-pressure
elevations may sustain myocardial remodeling independently of
training.

4.4 Stimulants and
polysubstance use

Highly caffeinated pre-workouts, sympathomimetics, diverted
prescription drugs, cocaine, and amphetamines may raise blood pressure
and heart rate and increase arrhythmic risk. Polysubstance exposure is
both a scientific confounder and a clinical reality among some AAS
users. Assigning every abnormality to a single compound may therefore be
misleading.

4.5 AAS, growth hormone,
and other drugs

AAS provide the strongest documented signal. Growth hormone, insulin,
thyroid hormones, diuretics, and some cutting agents may add metabolic,
electrolyte, or hemodynamic risks. Their independent contribution to LVH
is less clearly quantified because athletes frequently combine multiple
substances.

5.
Anabolic-androgenic steroids: what the studies show

5.1
During a cycle: measurable increases in mass and reductions in
function

The prospective HAARLEM study assessed 31 resistance-trained men
before an AAS cycle, at the end of the cycle—a median duration of 16
weeks—and after recovery. At the end of the cycle:

• left ventricular mass had increased by an average of 28.3
  g;
• three-dimensional left ventricular ejection fraction had fallen by
  4.9 percentage points;
• the E/A ratio had decreased and left atrial volume had
  increased;
• the increase in ventricular mass correlated with average weekly
  androgen dose.

In this cohort, the measured parameters normalized after
discontinuation at the one-year follow-up (Smit et al.,
2021). This short-term recovery is encouraging for that specific
population, but does not demonstrate that repeated exposure over many
years is harmless.

NCS conclusion: AAS can rapidly cause LVH and
subclinical systolic and diastolic impairment. Grade B,
given the prospective design but small sample and the ethical
impossibility of a randomized exposure trial.

5.2
Blood pressure, lipids, and hematocrit: several converging pathways

In the prospective HAARLEM cohort of 100 men, systolic pressure rose
by an average of 6.87 mmHg and diastolic pressure by 3.17 mmHg during
AAS exposure. LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B increased, HDL
cholesterol decreased, and hematocrit rose. These measures returned
toward baseline after discontinuation within the available follow-up (Smit et al.,
2022).

Average changes conceal substantial individual variability.
Collectively, they link AAS use to three routes of cardiovascular
injury: pressure overload, atherosclerosis, and increased blood
viscosity or thrombosis.

NCS conclusion: AAS consistently worsen several
cardiovascular risk markers. Grade B.

5.3 Prolonged
exposure: a cardiomyopathy signal

A Norwegian study compared 101 AAS users—with an average cumulative
exposure of 11 years—with 71 resistance-trained non-users. AAS users had
a higher left ventricular mass index (106 vs 80 g/m²), lower ejection
fraction (49% vs 59%), and impaired right ventricular function. Eleven
percent had an ejection fraction of 40% or lower. Former users also
retained abnormalities, on average, several years after discontinuation
(Abdullah et al.,
2024).

The study was cross-sectional, so it establishes association rather
than individual causation. However, the comparison group also performed
resistance training, and AAS history remained the strongest determinant
of dysfunction in adjusted models.

NCS conclusion: after prolonged exposure,
abnormalities can extend beyond isolated LVH and resemble a
biventricular cardiomyopathy that may persist after discontinuation.
Grade B.

5.4 Atherosclerosis and
clinical events

In 2025, a Danish study of 164 male and female recreational athletes
found more non-calcified coronary plaques in active AAS users than in
non-users, together with associations between cumulative exposure,
coronary calcification, and myocardial abnormalities. Its
cross-sectional design and potential selection bias require caution, but
the signal was present in both sexes (Buhl et al.,
2025).

More importantly for clinical outcomes, a nationwide Danish cohort
compared 1,189 men identified through an anti-doping program with 59,450
controls over approximately 11 years. AAS users had higher rates of
myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 3.00), arrhythmia (2.26),
cardiomyopathy (8.90), and heart failure (3.63) (Windfeld-Mathiasen
et al., 2025). An analysis from the same population also found
higher all-cause mortality (HR 2.81), while acknowledging possible
confounding factors (Windfeld-Mathiasen et al.,
2024).

NCS conclusion: the risks associated with AAS extend
beyond echocardiographic findings and are reflected in higher rates of
clinical cardiovascular events. Grade A for the
association, without the ability to predict the exact risk of
an individual or a specific drug regimen.

6. How might AAS remodel
the myocardium?

Several probably additive mechanisms have been proposed:

1. Direct cardiomyocyte signaling. Supraphysiological
   androgen-receptor activation may stimulate cardiac-cell growth.
2. Pressure overload. Higher resting pressure and
   repeated exercise-related stress increase afterload.
3. Fibrosis and extracellular-matrix remodeling.
   Collagen deposition and interstitial remodeling may stiffen the
   ventricle and impair relaxation.
4. Endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. An
   atherogenic lipid profile and other vascular effects contribute to
   coronary disease.
5. Erythrocytosis and thrombosis. An increased
   hematocrit may raise blood viscosity and contribute to thrombotic
   risk.
6. Combined toxicity. Stimulants, growth hormone,
   tobacco, sleep apnea, hypertension, and major weight fluctuations may
   amplify myocardial injury.

It is not yet possible to quantify the contribution of each pathway
in an individual. Nevertheless, the consistency across structural,
functional, biochemical, and clinical outcomes makes an explanation
based solely on exercise unlikely.

7. Athlete’s heart
or pathological hypertrophy?

Diagnosis relies on a pattern of findings; no single criterion is
absolute.

Feature	More consistent with physiological athletic remodeling	Pathological remodeling to investigate
Symptoms	None; stable exercise capacity	Exertional syncope, chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, declining performance
Blood pressure	Normal at rest and on repeated measurements	Sustained, masked, or nocturnal hypertension
Geometry	Proportionate increase in mass and chamber size	Marked concentric hypertrophy or a small, disproportionate cavity
Distribution	Homogeneous wall thickening	Asymmetric, apical, or segmental hypertrophy
Diastolic function	Normal or enhanced	Impaired relaxation or elevated filling pressure
Systolic function	Preserved ejection fraction and strain	Reduced ejection fraction or abnormal strain
Right ventricle	Proportionate adaptation	Right ventricular dysfunction
ECG	Changes compatible with athletic training	Unusual abnormalities, arrhythmia, pathological Q waves, marked repolarization changes
Cardiac MRI	No pathological scar	Fibrosis, abnormal tissue characteristics, or cardiomyopathy morphology
Course over time	Stable; may regress with detraining	Persists or progresses despite correction of hemodynamic stressors
Context	Training load consistent with the adaptation	AAS, hypertension, apnea, family history, or systemic disease

In an adult athlete, a wall thickness of 13–16 mm is commonly
regarded as a gray zone overlapping with mild hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy. This range must be interpreted in light of sex,
ancestry, body size, and sporting discipline. The European Society of
Cardiology notes that physiological hypertrophy is generally accompanied
by proportionate chamber enlargement, whereas asymmetric hypertrophy,
impaired diastolic function, or myocardial fibrosis suggests disease (ESC
sports imaging review).

8. A practical clinical
assessment

8.1 A non-judgmental history

A useful assessment records:

• duration, frequency, and type of training;
• training loads, proximity to failure, competitions, and concurrent
  endurance exercise;
• weight and body-composition changes;
• symptoms at rest and during exercise;
• personal and family history of cardiomyopathy or sudden death;
• previous blood-pressure readings, snoring, and sleep-apnea
  symptoms;
• prescription drugs, stimulants, AAS, and other current or past
  substances;
• cumulative lifetime exposure rather than only the current
  cycle.

Confidential, non-moralizing communication improves disclosure.
Cardiology experts emphasize this because undisclosed exposure can lead
to a dangerously incomplete interpretation (American
College of Cardiology, 2024).

8.2 First-line investigations

Depending on the clinical setting:

• physical examination and standardized blood-pressure
  measurement;
• home or 24-hour ambulatory monitoring when masked hypertension is
  suspected;
• 12-lead ECG;
• lipid profile including LDL-C, HDL-C, and—when
  appropriate—apolipoprotein B;
• complete blood count and hematocrit;
• glucose or HbA1c, renal function, liver tests, and electrolytes
  according to exposure;
• sleep-apnea assessment when clinically indicated.

In a current or former AAS user, echocardiography is reasonable to
quantify wall thickness, left ventricular mass, chamber volumes,
ejection fraction, diastolic function, atrial size, and right
ventricular function. Global longitudinal strain may
detect subtle systolic impairment when ejection fraction remains
apparently normal.

8.3 When cardiac MRI
becomes important

Cardiac MRI is particularly valuable when there is:

• a poor echocardiographic window;
• marked, asymmetric, or otherwise unexplained hypertrophy;
• a mismatch between cardiac morphology and training history;
• abnormal function or strain;
• a concerning ECG or arrhythmia;
• a family history of cardiomyopathy or sudden death;
• suspected fibrosis, myocarditis, or cardiomyopathy.

MRI precisely quantifies ventricular volumes and mass and
characterizes myocardial tissue. A pathological fibrosis pattern is not
expected in a simple, homogeneous athletic adaptation.

8.4 Targeted testing

An exercise test, sometimes with cardiopulmonary gas analysis,
evaluates symptoms, functional capacity, blood-pressure response, and
exercise-induced arrhythmias. Ambulatory ECG monitoring is appropriate
for palpitations, syncope, ectopy, or abnormal electrical findings.
Coronary imaging is not an automatic screening test for every young
bodybuilder; it should be considered according to age, symptoms,
atherosclerotic risk, and cumulative drug exposure.

9. A simple
risk-stratification framework

More reassuring profile

• asymptomatic athlete;
• confirmed normal blood pressure;
• mild, homogeneous hypertrophy;
• proportionate chamber remodeling;
• preserved systolic and diastolic function and strain;
• no significant fibrosis or arrhythmia;
• no known supraphysiological drug exposure.

Continuing resistance training is generally compatible with this
profile, with follow-up tailored to other cardiovascular risk
factors.

Intermediate
profile: assessment incomplete

• wall thickness in the gray zone;
• concentric remodeling without symptoms;
• borderline or variable blood pressure;
• previous AAS exposure;
• very high body mass, possible sleep apnea, or incomplete family
  history;
• a mildly abnormal strain measurement or an ECG that is difficult to
  classify.

The priority is to resolve uncertainty with ambulatory blood
pressure, expert echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and/or exercise
testing.

Concerning profile

• exertional syncope, chest pain, or disproportionate dyspnea;
• reduced ejection fraction, clearly impaired strain, or right
  ventricular dysfunction;
• fibrosis on cardiac MRI;
• marked or asymmetric hypertrophy;
• ventricular arrhythmia or a family history of sudden death;
• severe or uncontrolled hypertension;
• prolonged AAS exposure with structural or functional
  abnormalities.

High-intensity training should not continue in this setting without
cardiology assessment and shared decision-making.

10. Can LVH
regress after AAS discontinuation?

The answer is: sometimes, but not always
completely.

The prospective HAARLEM findings suggest normalization after one
cycle and a subsequent off-drug period in men followed for one year. By
contrast, studies of users with nearly a decade or more of cumulative
exposure report persistent abnormalities in some former users years
after discontinuation.

This apparent discrepancy is informative:

• early changes after limited exposure may be more reversible;
• repeated or prolonged exposure may lead to fibrosis and lasting
  dysfunction;
• individual susceptibility and coexposures matter;
• the studies do not examine identical populations.

Discontinuing AAS remains the central causal intervention, but
withdrawal can involve hypogonadism, reduced libido, mood symptoms, and
relapse. Medical support is advisable. Unsupervised “post-cycle therapy”
is not a proven cardiovascular treatment and may introduce additional
risks.

11.
Reducing risk without necessarily abandoning resistance training

For every bodybuilder

1. Measure blood pressure properly, rather than relying on one reading
   at rest or in the gym.
2. Treat confirmed hypertension instead of attributing it to stress or
   body size.
3. Investigate sleep apnea when snoring, fatigue, sleepiness, or a
   large neck circumference is present.
4. Retain an appropriate endurance component: strength does not replace
   cardiorespiratory fitness.
5. Avoid excessive, rapid weight gain, especially when it substantially
   increases body fat.
6. Limit stimulants and avoid combining several sympathomimetic
   products.
7. Use sound breathing and lifting technique. The Valsalva maneuver may
   be necessary for some heavy lifts, but should not be casually repeated
   by someone with uncontrolled hypertension.
8. Do not train at high intensity while unexplained cardiovascular
   symptoms are present.

For current or former AAS
users

The clinical message should be neither punitive nor falsely
reassuring. Priorities are to document cumulative exposure, identify
silent complications, support discontinuation through appropriate
medical care, and treat detected cardiovascular risks. A normal
assessment today does not erase future risk, particularly if exposure
continues.

12. What has not been
demonstrated

• No dietary supplement has been shown to prevent AAS-associated
  cardiomyopathy.
• Omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, coenzyme Q10, taurine, and
  “heart-support” products do not neutralize supraphysiological androgen
  exposure.
• One normal blood-pressure reading does not establish the absence of
  cardiovascular effects.
• A normal ejection fraction does not exclude early abnormalities in
  strain or diastolic function.
• Shorter cycles, alternative “stacks,” or post-cycle drugs have not
  been shown to make non-medical AAS use cardiovascularly safe.
• Excellent physical performance does not exclude subclinical
  atherosclerosis or cardiomyopathy.

13. Summary of the evidence

Statement	Conclusion	NCS grade
Drug-free resistance training can moderately increase cardiac mass	Probable, generally with balanced remodeling and preserved function	B
AAS increase left ventricular mass in the short term	Demonstrated prospectively in a small cohort	B
AAS adversely affect blood pressure, lipids, and hematocrit	Consistent prospective data	B
Prolonged exposure is associated with biventricular cardiomyopathy	Robust association across several human comparisons	B
AAS use is associated with more myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and heart failure	Large nationwide cohort with long follow-up	A for the association
All abnormalities reverse after discontinuation	False; recovery varies with exposure and injury	B
A supplement can protect the heart during an AAS cycle	Not demonstrated	E

14. Frequently asked
questions

Is a
12 mm left ventricular wall abnormal in a bodybuilder?

Not necessarily. Sex, body size, blood pressure, ventricular volumes,
and measurement technique all matter. The value should be interpreted
alongside geometry, function, and clinical context. Change over time may
be more informative than one isolated result.

Does
a wall thickness of 13 mm mean resistance training must stop?

Not automatically. A thickness of 13–16 mm is often described as a
gray zone in adult athletes. It calls for expert assessment, not a
conclusion based on the number alone. Symptoms, the distribution of
hypertrophy, ECG findings, strain, blood pressure, family history, and
cardiac MRI help guide the decision.

Is a
normal ejection fraction sufficient reassurance?

No. Early disease may affect strain or relaxation before ejection
fraction declines. Conversely, some highly trained endurance athletes
have a relatively low resting ejection fraction but excellent
contractile reserve. Context remains essential.

Does a normal
ECG exclude LVH or cardiomyopathy?

No. The ECG is useful but imperfect. Echocardiography or cardiac MRI
may show structural disease despite a minimally abnormal or normal
ECG.

When
should echocardiography be repeated after discontinuing AAS?

There is no universal schedule. Timing depends on the initial
abnormalities, symptoms, blood pressure, and cumulative exposure.
Reassessment after several months may document the trajectory, but
significant findings require earlier and individualized cardiology
follow-up.

Does
natural bodybuilding eliminate cardiovascular risk?

No. It avoids the risk attributable to AAS but does not exclude
hypertension, sleep apnea, inherited cardiomyopathy, obesity,
dyslipidemia, or excessive stimulant exposure.

15. Conclusion

In bodybuilders, left ventricular hypertrophy lies at the boundary
between sports physiology and cardiovascular disease. Drug-free
resistance training may produce a modest and proportionate increase in
cardiac mass without impairing function. That adaptation should not,
however, be used as an automatic explanation for marked concentric
hypertrophy, impaired strain, ventricular dysfunction, or myocardial
fibrosis.

AAS exposure changes the level of concern. Prospective studies show
rapid alterations in left ventricular mass and function; cohorts of
long-term users identify cardiomyopathy that may persist after
discontinuation; national data demonstrate higher rates of clinical
cardiovascular events. Sound assessment therefore integrates cumulative
exposure, blood pressure, ECG, multimodality imaging, and coexisting
risk factors.

The preventive message is simple: a thicker heart is not
necessarily a diseased heart, but a diseased heart may remain highly
functional for a long time. The absence of symptoms is not a
substitute for understanding the cause.

Related NutriCellScience
articles

• Left
  Ventricular Hypertrophy: When Cardiac Adaptation Becomes a Risk
  Factor
• Can
  Moderate Hypertension Be Treated Without Medication?
• Endothelial
  Health: Strategies That Actually Work

The linked pages are currently available in French.

Selected references

1. Pamart N, et al. Association between muscle strength gains and
   biventricular cardiac remodeling in response to high-intensity
   resistance training in healthy untrained males. BMC Sports Sci Med
   Rehabil. 2025. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01165-8.
2. Smit DL, Voogel AJ, den Heijer M, de Ronde W. Anabolic androgenic
   steroids induce reversible left ventricular hypertrophy and cardiac
   dysfunction: echocardiography results of the HAARLEM study. Front
   Reprod Health. 2021;3:732318. doi:10.3389/frph.2021.732318.
3. Smit DL, et al. Prospective study on blood pressure, lipid
   metabolism and erythrocytosis during and after androgen abuse.
   Andrologia. 2022;54:e14372. PubMed.
4. Baggish AL, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity of illicit
   anabolic-androgenic steroid use. Circulation.
   2017;135:1991–2002. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026945.
5. Luijkx T, et al. Anabolic androgenic steroid use is associated with
   ventricular dysfunction on cardiac MRI in strength-trained athletes.
   Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:664–668. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.03.072.
6. Rasmussen JJ, et al. Cardiac systolic dysfunction in past illicit
   users of anabolic androgenic steroids. Am Heart J.
   2018;203:49–56. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.010.
7. Fyksen TS, et al. Cardiovascular phenotype of long-term
   anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers compared with strength-trained
   athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32:1170–1181. doi:10.1111/sms.14172.
8. Abdullah R, et al. Severe biventricular cardiomyopathy in both
   current and former long-term users of anabolic-androgenic steroids.
   Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2024;31:599–608. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad362.
9. Buhl LF, et al. Illicit anabolic steroid use and cardiovascular
   status in men and women. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8:e2526636. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.26636.
10. Windfeld-Mathiasen J, et al. Cardiovascular disease in anabolic
    androgenic steroid users. Circulation. 2025;151:828–834. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.071117.
11. Windfeld-Mathiasen J, et al. Mortality among users of anabolic
    steroids. JAMA. 2024;331:1229–1230. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.3180.
12. Sharma S, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines on sports cardiology and
    exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J.
    2021;42:17–96. ESC.
13. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of
    cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44:3503–3626. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194.
14. Meagher SP, et al. The expert’s approach to managing cardiovascular
    risk among athletes using anabolic-androgenic steroids. American College
    of Cardiology. 2024. ACC.
15. MacDougall JD, et al. Arterial blood pressure response to heavy
    resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1985;58:785–790. doi:10.1152/jappl.1985.58.3.785.

---

Transparency statement: this evidence synthesis was
structured with AI assistance. Current professional guidance, regulatory
information, and individualized clinical assessment take precedence if
discrepancies arise.