Respiratory muscle training in athletes with cervical spinal cord injury: effects on cardiopulmonary function and exercise capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key points The effect of combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training on resting and reflexive cardiac function, as well as exercise capacity, in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is presently unknown. Six weeks of combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training enhances both inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength in highly‐trained athletes with cervical SCI with no significant effect on lung function. There was a significant decrease in left‐ventricular filling and stroke volume at rest in response to 45° head‐up tilt, which is irreversible by respiratory muscle training. Combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training increased peak aerobic work rate and reduced end‐expiratory lung volumes during exercise, which may have implications for left‐ventricular filling during exercise. Abstract To investigate the pulmonary, cardiovascular and exercise responses to combined inspiratory and expiratory respiratory muscle training (RMT) in athletes with tetraplegia, six wheelchair rugby athletes (five males and one female, aged 33 ± 5 years) completed 6 weeks of pressure threshold RMT, 2 sessions day–1 on 5 days week–1. Resting pulmonary and cardiac function, exercise capacity, exercising lung volumes and field‐based exercise performance were assessed at pre‐RMT, post‐RMT and after a 6‐week no RMT period. RMT enhanced maximal inspiratory (pre‐ vs. post‐RMT: −76 ± 15 to −106 ± 23 cmH2O, P = 0.002) and expiratory (59 ± 26 to 73 ± 32 cmH2O, P = 0.007) mouth pressures, as well as peak expiratory flow (6.74 ± 1.51 vs. 7.32 ± 1.60 L/s, P < 0.04). Compared to pre‐RMT, peak work rate was higher at post‐RMT (60 ± 23 to 68 ± 22 W, P = 0.003), whereas exercising end‐expiratory lung volumes were reduced (P < 0.017). Peak oxygen uptake increased in all athletes at post‐RMT (1.24 ± 0.40 vs. 1.40 ± 0.50 l min−1, P = 0.12). After 6 weeks of no RMT all indices returned towards baseline, with peak work rate (P = 0.037), peak oxygen uptake (P = 0.041) and end‐expiratory lung volume (P < 0.034) being significantly lower at follow‐up than at post‐RMT. There was a significant decrease in left‐ventricular end‐diastolic volume and stroke volume in response to 45° head‐up tilt (P = 0.030 and 0.021, respectively); however, all cardiac indices in both supine and tilted positions were unchanged by RMT. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of RMT with respect to enhancing respiratory muscle strength, lowering exercising lung volumes and increasing exercise capacity. Although the precise mechanisms by which RMT may enhance exercise capacity remain unclear, our data suggest that it is probably not the result of a direct cardiac adaptation associated with RMT.
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) | 0.001 | 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".