Ventilatory and perceptual responses to cycle exercise in obese women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relative contribution of respiratory mechanical factors and the increased metabolic cost of locomotion to exertional breathlessness in obese women. We examined the relationship of intensity of breathlessness to ventilation (VE) when exertional oxygen uptake (VO2) of obesity was minimized by cycle exercise. Eighteen middle-aged (54+/-8 yr, mean+/-SD) obese [body mass index (BMI) 40.2+/-7.8 kg/m2] and 13 age-matched normal-weight (BMI 23.3+/-1.7 kg/m2) women were studied. Breathlessness at higher submaximal cycle work rates was significantly increased (by>or=1 Borg unit) in obese compared with normal-weight women, in association with a 35-45% increase in Ve and a higher metabolic cost of exercise. Obese women demonstrated greater resting expiratory flow limitation, reduced resting end-expiratory lung volume (EELV)(by 20%), and progressive increases in dynamic EELV during exercise: peak inspiratory capacity (IC) decreased by 16% (0.39 liter) of the resting value. VE/VO2 slopes were unchanged in obesity. Breathlessness ratings at any given VE or VO2 were not increased in obesity, suggesting that respiratory mechanical factors were not contributory. Our results indicate that in obese women, recruitment of resting IC and dynamic increases in EELV with exercise served to optimize operating lung volumes and to attenuate expiratory flow limitation so as to accommodate the increased ventilatory demand without increased breathlessness.
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".