Breathing strategy in master athletes and untrained elderly subjects according to the incremental protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To analyze the influence of step-duration protocol (1 vs. 3 min) on breathing strategy according to the physical fitness of healthy elderly subjects, this study compared the ventilatory responses and exercise tidal flow-volume loops (ETFVL) at the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT(1) and VT(2)). Nineteen master athletes (mean age (+/- SD), 63.1 +/- 3.2 y; (.)VO(2)(max), 41.5 mL x (min x kg)(-1)) and 8 untrained elderly subjects (age, 65.5 +/- 2.3 y; (.)VO(2)(max), 25.8 mL x (min x kg)(-1)) performed 2 exhaustive exercise tests on a cycle ergometer. In untrained subjects, at VT(1) and VT(2), no significant difference was measured in ventilatory responses and ETFVL between protocols. Master athletes, at VT(2), presented a significantly higher (.)VCO(2) (P < 0.01), ventilation ((.)VE; P < 0.01), breathing frequency (f(b); P < 0.05), tidal volume relative to inspiratory capatcity (V(t)/IC) (P < 0.01),V(t) relative to forced vital capacity (V(t)/FVC; P < 0.05), and lower inspiratory reserve volume relative to FVC (IRV/FVC; P < 0.01) during the 1 min protocol than during the 3 min protocol. Master athletes, at maximal exercise, expressed significantly higher (.)VCO(2) (P < 0.01) and dyspnea (P < 0.05) with the shorter protocol. We concluded that, in untrained subjects, neither incremental exercise test had an impact on respiratory responses during exercise. Nevertheless, in master athletes, breathing strategy seems to be protocol dependent. The short test induced higher mechanical ventilatory constraints and dyspneic feeling than the long protocol, which could be explained by a higher (.)VE itself linked to a greater (.)VCO(2) and a higher blood lactate concentration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".