Inspiratory Muscle Fatigue Following Maximal Exercise in Moderately Trained Males and Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1798 Exercise-induced inspiratory muscle fatigue (IMF) has been reported in males (M) but there are few reports of IMF in females (F). The fatigability of locomotor muscle has been reported to be different between M and F, where F are more resistant to fatigue. It is not known if a gender difference exists for inspiratory muscle strength following heavy exercise. PURPOSE: To compare inspiratory muscle strength between M and F following maximal exercise. METHODS: 18 M (23 ± 3yrs; mean ± SD) and 16 F (23 ± 2yrs) completed 10 maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal handgrip strength (HG) maneuvers to establish a baseline. Subjects then performed a progressive intensity VO2max test on a cycle ergometer. Post-exercise MIP and HG were assessed immediately following exercise and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 15 min. RESULTS: VO2max relative to fat-free mass was not different between M (62 ± 7ml.kg−1. min−1) and F (60 ± 8ml. kg−1. min−1). M had higher absolute MIP values (−cmH2O) than F at all time intervals. Immediately following exercise MIP was significantly reduced in both genders (M = 83 ± 16%; F = 78 ± 15% of baseline) but HG values were not different than resting values. MIP values remained depressed for both M and F throughout the 15 min (P<0.05). Differences for MIP between M and F were not statistically significant at any measurement time (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: IMF was observed immediately following maximal exercise in both M and F and the pattern of recovery was the same between genders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".