Impact of Hypoventilation Training on Muscle Oxygenation, Myoelectrical Changes, Systemic [K+], and Repeated-Sprint Ability in Basketball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of repeated-sprint (RS) training with voluntary hypoventilation at low lung volume (VHL) on RS ability (RSA) and on performance in a 30-15 intermittent fitness test (30-15IFT). Over four weeks, seventeen basketball players included eight sessions of straight-line running RS and RS with changes of direction into their usual training, performed either with normal breathing (CTL, n=8) or with VHL (n=9). Before and after the training, athletes completed a RSA test (12 x 30-m, 25-s rest) and a 30-15IFT. During the RSA test, the fastest sprint (RSAbest), time-based percentage decrement score (RSASdec), total electromyographic intensity (RMS) and spectrum frequency (MPF) of the biceps femoris and gastrocnemius muscles, and biceps femoris NIRS-derived oxygenation were assessed for every sprint. A capillary blood sample was also taken after the last sprint to analyse metabolic and ionic markers. Cohen’s effect sizes (ES) were used to compare group differences. Compared with CTL, VHL did not clearly modify RSAbest, but likely lowered RSASdec (VHL: -24.5% vs CTL: -5.9%, group difference: -19.8%, ES -0.44). VHL also lowered the maximal deoxygenation induced by sprints ([HHb]max; group difference: -2.9%, ES -0.72) and enhanced the reoxygenation during recovery periods ([HHb]min; group difference: -3.6%, ES -1.00). VHL increased RMS (group difference: 18.2%, ES 1.28) and maintained MPF towards higher frequencies (group difference: 9.8 ± 5.0%, ES 1.40). These changes were concomitant with a lower potassium (K+) concentration (group difference: -17.5%, ES -0.67), and the lowering in [K+] was largely correlated with RSASdec post-training in VHL only (r=0.66, p < 0.05). However, VHL did not clearly alter PO2, haemoglobin, lactate and bicarbonate concentration and base excess. There was no difference between group velocity gains for the 30-15IFT (CTL: 6.9% vs VHL: 7.5%, ES 0.07). These results indicate that RS training combined with VHL may improve RSA, which could be relevant to basketball player success. This gain may be attributed to greater muscle reoxygenation, enhanced muscle recruitment strategies and improved K+ regulation to attenuate the development of muscle fatigue, especially in type-II muscle fibers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".