The effects of inspiratory resistive loading on respiratory and locomotors muscle oxygenation during high intensity exercise in female soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female athletes are more susceptible to expiratory flow limitation and arterial hypoxemia during high-intensity exercise compared to men, which might induce to diaphragmatic fatigue with negative consequences to muscle blood flow supply to respiratory and peripheral muscles. AIM: To assess the impact of inspiratory resistive loading (IRV) on respiratory and peripheral muscle oxygenation in female soccer players (FSP). METHODS: Twenty elite FSP were recruited. After an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPX) on a treadmill, they performed (on a different day) two high-intensity constant velocity testing to the limit of the tolerance-Tlim (100% of peak CPX). During these bouts they breathed through a resistive load of 15cmH2O or sham. Peripheral and respiratory muscle oxygenation by near-infrared spectroscopy, breath-by-breath ventilatory and metabolic variables and blood lactate ([La+]) were measured. RESULTS: IRV was associated with significant increases in [La+]/Tlim and lower Tlim compared to sham (224.4±54.2 vs 77.7±19.7, P<0.05). Respiratory and peripheral muscle deoxygenation were higher during IRV than sham (4.2 ± 3.9 vs 5.6±3.2 and 8.5±4.2 vs 9.7±4.9, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: IRV decreases peripheral muscle oxygenation (likely secondary to impaired blood flow) and exercise performance in FSP. Respiratory muscle training may prove helpful to enhance exercise performance in these athletes. Financial Support; CNPq: 487385/2013-6 and 400442/2014-0.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".