Inspiratory muscle training attenuates the human respiratory muscle metaboreflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that inspiratory muscle training (IMT) would attenuate the sympathetically mediated heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) increases normally observed during fatiguing inspiratory muscle work. An experimental group (Exp, n = 8) performed IMT 6 days per week for 5 weeks at 50% of maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), while a control group (Sham, n = 8) performed IMT at 10% MIP. Pre- and post-training, subjects underwent a eucapnic resistive breathing task (RBT) (breathing frequency = 15 breaths min(-1), duty cycle = 0.70) while HR and MAP were continuously monitored. Following IMT, MIP increased significantly (P < 0.05) in the Exp group (-125 +/- 10 to -146 +/- 12 cmH(2)O; mean +/- s.e.m.) but not in the Sham group (-141 +/- 11 to -148 +/- 11 cmH(2)O). Prior to IMT, the RBT resulted in significant increases in HR (Sham: 59 +/- 2 to 83 +/- 4 beats min(-1); Exp: 62 +/- 3 to 83 +/- 4 beats min(-1)) and MAP (Sham: 88 +/- 2 to 106 +/- 3 mmHg; Exp: 84 +/- 1 to 99 +/- 3 mmHg) in both groups relative to rest. Following IMT, the Sham group observed similar HR and MAP responses to the RBT while the Exp group failed to increase HR and MAP to the same extent as before (HR: 59 +/- 3 to 74 +/- 2 beats min(-1); MAP: 84 +/- 1 to 89 +/- 2 mmHg). This attenuated cardiovascular response suggests a blunted sympatho-excitation to resistive inspiratory work. We attribute our findings to a reduced activity of chemosensitive afferents within the inspiratory muscles and may provide a mechanism for some of the whole-body exercise endurance improvements associated with IMT.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".