Effects of respiratory muscle work on respiratory and locomotor blood flow during exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Findings What is the central question of this study? Does manipulation of the work of breathing during high‐intensity exercise alter respiratory and locomotor muscle blood flow? What is the main finding and its importance? We found that when the work of breathing was reduced during exercise, respiratory muscle blood flow decreased, while locomotor muscle blood flow increased. Conversely, when the work of breathing was increased, respiratory muscle blood flow increased, while locomotor muscle blood flow decreased. Our findings support the theory of a competitive relationship between locomotor and respiratory muscles during intense exercise. Manipulation of the work of breathing (WOB) during near‐maximal exercise influences leg blood flow, but the effects on respiratory muscle blood flow are equivocal. We sought to assess leg and respiratory muscle blood flow simultaneously during intense exercise while manipulating WOB. Our hypotheses were as follows: (i) increasing the WOB would increase respiratory muscle blood flow and decrease leg blood flow; and (ii) decreasing the WOB would decrease respiratory muscle blood flow and increase leg blood flow. Eight healthy subjects ( n = 5 men, n = 3 women) performed a maximal cycle test (day 1) and a series of constant‐load exercise trials at 90% of peak work rate (day 2). On day 2, WOB was assessed with oesophageal balloon catheters and was increased (via resistors), decreased (via proportional assist ventilation) or unchanged (control) during the trials. Blood flow was assessed using near‐infrared spectroscopy optodes placed over quadriceps and the sternocleidomastoid muscles, coupled with a venous Indocyanine Green dye injection. Changes in WOB were significantly and positively related to changes in respiratory muscle blood flow ( r = 0.73), whereby increasing the WOB increased blood flow. Conversely, changes in WOB were significantly and inversely related to changes in locomotor blood flow ( r = 0.57), whereby decreasing the WOB increased locomotor blood flow. Oxygen uptake was not different during the control and resistor trials (3.8 ± 0.9 versus 3.7 ± 0.8 l min −1 , P > 0.05), but was lower on the proportional assist ventilator trial (3.4 ± 0.7 l min −1 , P < 0.05) compared with control. Our findings support the concept that respiratory muscle work significantly influences the distribution of blood flow to both respiratory and locomotor muscles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".