A Comparison of the Physiological Responses to Underwater Arm Cranking and Breath Holding Between Synchronized Swimmers and Breath Holding Untrained Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise and breath holding in the water such as that performed in the sport of synchronized swimming may evoke the physiological consequences of the diving response. The purpose of this study was to investigate the physiological responses of breath holding during underwater arm cranking in synchronized swimmers who are trained in breath holding and compare these responses to untrained women. Each participant performed 6 breath holding periods in the water (2 × 10s, 2 × 20s and 2 × 25s) with 2 minutes of normal breathing in between, in either an ascending or descending order while performing arm crank exercise. The intensity of arm crank exercise was set below the individual ventilatory threshold. Both synchronized swimmers and controls were matched on sitting height and then randomly divided into 2 groups: one group started breath holding with the longest (25s) breath holding periods while the other group began breath holding with the shortest (10s) breath holding periods. The synchronized swimmers experienced a significant decrease in heart rate while breath holding for 20 and 25s but the changes in heart rate for the control group was not consistent between subgroups. Full recovery from breath holding was identified for minute ventilation after 25s of recovery from breath holding for all groups. Results suggest synchronized swimmers exhibited a better adaptation to breath holding while exercising underwater.
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) | 0.003 | 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".