Are Respiratory Responses to Cold Air Exercise Different in Females Compared to Males? Implications for Exercise in Cold Air Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that cold air exercise causes significant respiratory dysfunction, especially in female athletes. However, how female and male athletes respond to cold air exercise is not known. Thus, we aimed to compare acute respiratory responses (function, recovery and symptoms) in males and females after high-intensity cold air exercise. Eighteen (nine female) athletes completed two environmental chamber running trials at 0 °C and −20 °C (humidity 34 ± 5%) on different days in a randomized starting order. Spirometry was performed pre, 3, 6, 10, 15 and 20 min post. Respiratory symptoms were measured posttrial and heart rate and rating of perceived exertion were assessed during each trial. No significant differences in delta change (pre to post) were found at either temperature between sexes for FEV1, FVC, FEF50% and FEF25–75%. At −20 °C, FEV1 decreased similarly in both sexes (males: 7.5%, females: 6.3%) but not at 0 °C, p = 0.003. Postexertion respiratory function recovery and reported symptoms were not different between sexes at either temperature. These results indicate no sex-based differences in acute respiratory responses (function, recovery and symptoms) to cold air exercise. However, intense exercise at −20 °C is challenging to the respiratory system in both sexes and may lead to altered respiratory responses compared to mild winter conditions like 0 °C.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".