Specific inspiratory muscle warm-up enhances badminton footwork performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of inspiratory muscle (IM) warm-up on IM function and on the maximum distance covered in a subsequent incremental badminton-footwork test (FWmax) were examined. Ten male badminton players were recruited to perform identical tests in three different trials in a random order. The control trial did not involve an IM warm-up, whereas the placebo and experimental trials did involve an IM warm-up consisting of two sets of 30-breath manoeuvres with an inspiratory pressure-threshold load equivalent to 15% (PLA) and 40% (IMW) maximum inspiratory mouth pressure, respectively. In the IMW trial, IM function was improved with 7.8%+/-4.0% and 6.9%+/-3.5% increases from control found in maximal inspiratory pressure at zero flow (P0) and maximal rate of P0 development (MRPD), respectively (p<0.05). FWmax was enhanced 6.8%+/-3.7%, whereas the slope of the linear relationship of the increase in the rating of perceived breathlessness for every minute (RPB/min) was reduced (p<0.05). Reduction in blood lactate ([La-]b) accumulation was observed when the test duration was identical to that of the control trial (P<0.05). In the PLA trial, no parameter was changed from control. For the changes (Delta) in parameters in IMW (n=10), negative correlations were found between DeltaP0 and DeltaRPB/min (r2=0.58), DeltaMRPD and DeltaRPB/min (r2=0.48), DeltaRPB/min, and DeltaFWmax (r2=0.55), but not between Delta[La-]b accumulation and DeltaFWmax. Such findings suggest that the IM-specific warm-up improved footwork performance in the subsequent maximum incremental badminton-footwork test. The improved footwork was partly attributable to the reduced breathless sensation resulting from the enhanced IM function, whereas the contribution of the concomitant reduction in [La-]b accumulation was relatively minor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".