目的：本研究探討運動訓練介入對主動脈和肺動脈血流速度之影響。方法：以健康男性大學生23名，年齡20.3±1.6歲、身高174±5.1公分、體重71.1±12.4公斤，隨機分為運動練(E)組11名及控制©組12名，E組接受運動訓練，持續一年時間；C組則維持原本的生活型態，並以磁振造影和血流分析軟體分析訓練前、後，主動脈和肺動脈之血流速度，以二因子混合設計變異數分析考驗訓練介入的效果，顯著水準為α=.05。結果：組別與前、後測的交互作用並未達顯著水準(P>.05)；而在主動脈血流速度的前測值與後測值達顯著差異項目有，平均管徑流速的峰值(75.0±9.8cm/s、5.68.4±8.8cm/s, p<.05)、最慢管徑流速的平均值(55.8±14.4cm/s、5.66.1±20.0cm/s, p<.05)、最慢管徑流速的峰值(131.1±19.4cm/s、5.148.1±39.4cm/s, p<.05)、最慢管徑流速的谷值(19.5±5.9cm/s、5.16.1±8.3cm/s, p<.05)、最快管徑流速的平均值(31.1±13.9cm/s、5.51.1±41.1cm/s, p<.05)、最快管徑流速的峰值(90.6±51.5cm/s、125.1±56.1cm/s, p<.05)；在肺動脈的前測值與後測值達顯著差異項目則有，最慢管徑流速的平均值(28.8±8.9cm/s、5.46.9±11.3cm/s, p<.05)、最慢管徑流速的谷值(10.0±6.5cm/s、5.19.5±6.0cm/s, p<.05)。結論：本研究經一年的運動訓練介入後對安靜狀態下主動脈血流速度及肺動脈血流速度並未造成顯著的改變；而主動脈、肺動脈部份流速在前、後測量上達顯著差異水準，可能是由於年齡的增加、心室收舒速度增快或是其他因素的影響，更待後續之研究。

Purpose: The research examined the effect of exercise training intervention in aorta and pulmonary artery flow velocity. Methods： Twenty-three healthy university male-student (mean age 20.3±1.6 years, height 174±5.2 cm, weight 72.1±12.4 kg) were randomly assigned to exercise group (E group, 11 males) and control group (C group, 12 males). The exercise training intensity was 75% of VO(subscript 2max) running and the duration time was 45 minutes, three days per week. The resistant training was two days per week, two sets and 12-15 repetitions recommended by ACSM. The C group maintained their life-style. Magnetic resonance imaging and the CV flow analyzer are used to measure velocity of aorta's and pulmonary artery's CV flow. Subjects underwent all tests at baseline and after one year training period. The data were analyzed by mixed two-way ANOVA to examine any change after exercise training. The statistical significance was determined at α=.05. Results： In aorta, there were significant differences in average value caliber velocity of flow's peak (75.0±9.8 vs. 68.4±8.8 cm/s), slowest value caliber velocity of flow's mean (55.8±14.4 vs. 66.1±20.0 cm/s), slowest value caliber velocity of flow's valley (19.5±5.9 vs. 26.1±8.3 cm/s), quickest value caliber velocity of flow's mean (31.2±13.9 vs. 52.2±41.1 cm/s), quickest caliber velocity of flow's peak value (90.6±51.5 vs. 125.1±56.1 cm/s). In pulmonary artery, there were significant differences in slowest value caliber velocity of flow's mean (28.8±8.9 vs. 46.9±12.3 cm/s), slowest value caliber velocity of flow's valley (10.0±6.5 vs. 19.5±6.0 cm/s). Conclusions： We concluded that aorta's and the pulmonary artery's CV flow velocity were unchanged during rest after one year exercise training intervention.