Breathing Techniques Affect Female but Not Male Hip Flexion Range of Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two protocols were undertaken to help clarify the effects of breathing techniques on hamstrings (hip flexion) range of motion (ROM). The protocols examined effects of breathing conditions on ROM and trunk muscle activity. Protocol 1: Thirty recreationally active participants (15 male, 15 female, 20-25 years) were monitored for changes in single-leg raise (SLR) ROM with 7 breathing conditions before or during a passive supine SLR stretch. Breathing conditions included prestretch inhale, prestretch exhale, inhale-during stretch, exhale-during stretch, neutral, hyperventilation, and hypoventilation before stretch. Protocol 2: Eighteen recreationally active participants (9 male, 9 female, 20-25 years) were monitored for electromyographic (EMG) activity of the rectus abdominus, external obliques, lower abdominal stabilizers, and lower erector spinae while performing the 7 breathing conditions before or during a passive SLR stretch. Control exhibited less ROM (p = 0.008) than the prestretch inhale (7.7%), inhale-during stretch (10.9%), and hypoventilation (11.2%) conditions with females. Protocol 3: Greater overall muscle activity in the prestretch exhale condition was found compared with inhale-during stretch (43.1%↓; p = 0.029) and hypoventilation (51.2%↓; p = 0.049) conditions. As the inhale-during stretch and hypoventilation conditions produced the lowest levels of muscle activity for both sexes and the highest ROM for the females, it can be assumed that both mechanical and neural factors affect female SLR ROM. Lesser male ROM might be attributed to anatomical differences such as greater joint stiffness. The breathing techniques may have affected intra-abdominal pressure, trunk muscle cocontractions, and sympathetic neural activity to enhance female ROM.
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".