The Valsalva Maneuver Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporary apnea combined with forceful exhaling against the glottis, denned as the Valsalva maneuver (VM), has been reported to produce large increases in blood pressure, fluctuations in heart rate, and increases in intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic pressure. These side-effects, among others, have lead athletes and sport enthusiasts to consciously avoid practicing this technique. A great deal of research has investigated the potential risks associated with the VM; however, to our knowledge no study has investigated the potential benefits the VM may provide with regard to strength acquisition, as well as the mechanisms for an increase or decrease in strength development. PURPOSE: To determine whether the VM enhances strength development during maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVICs). METHODS: All subjects were randomly assigned to perform either (C) control first or (V) Valsalva first. Strength was measured using a Grip Strength (GS) dynamometer and a Cybex Isokinetic Dynamometer (knee flexion and extension). Subjects performed maximal contractions with (V) or without (C) the VM. RESULTS: were calculated based on group means using a dependent t-test. RESULTS: Maximal Grip Strength was higher when practicing the VM in 67% of the subjects. Maximal voluntary isometric knee extension (MVIKE) at 90° increased in 80% of subjects while performing a VM. Maximal voluntary Isometric knee flexion (MVIKF) at 140°was significantly (p >0.05) improved when a VM was performed. CONCLUSION The VM, when practiced by healthy college age individuals, seems to improve strength during MVICs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".