The effect of inspiratory muscle training and detraining on the respiratory metaboreflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Is the attenuation of the respiratory muscle metaboreflex preserved after detraining? What is the main finding and its importance? Inspiratory muscle training increased respiratory muscle strength and attenuated the respiratory muscle metaboreflex as evident by lower heart rate and blood pressure. After 5 weeks of no inspiratory muscle training (detraining), respiratory muscle strength was still elevated and the metaboreflex was still attenuated. The benefits of inspiratory muscle training persist after cessation of training, and attenuation of the respiratory metaboreflex follows changes in respiratory muscle strength. ABSTRACT: Respiratory muscle training (RMT) improves respiratory muscle (RM) strength and attenuates the RM metaboreflex. However, the time course of muscle function loss after the absence of training or 'detraining' is less known and some evidence suggest the respiratory muscles atrophy faster than other muscles. We sought to determine the RM metaboreflex in response to 5 weeks of RMT and 5 weeks of detraining. An experimental group (2F, 6M; 26 ± 4years) completed 5 weeks of RMT and tibialis anterior (TA) training (each 5 days/week at 50% of maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and 50% maximal isometric force, respectively) followed by 5 weeks of no training (detraining) while a control group (1F, 7M; 24 ± 1years) underwent no intervention. Prior to training (PRE), post-training (POST) and post-detraining (DETR), all participants underwent a loaded breathing task (LBT) to failure (60% MIP) while heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were measured. Five weeks of training increased RM (18 ± 9%, P < 0.001) and TA (+34 ± 19%, P < 0.001) strength and both remained elevated after 5 weeks of detraining (MIP-POST vs. MIP-DETR: 154 ± 31 vs. 153 ± 28 cmH2O, respectively, P = 0.853; TA-POST vs. TA-DETR: 86 ± 19 vs. 85 ± 16 N, respectively, P = 0.982). However, the rise in MAP during LBT was attenuated POST (-11 ± 17%, P = 0.003) and DETR (-9 ± 9%, P = 0.007) during the iso-time LBT. The control group had no change in MIP (P = 0.33), TA strength (P = 0.385), or iso-time MAP (P = 0.867) during LBT across all time points. In conclusion, RM and TA have similar temporal strength gains and the attenuation of the respiratory muscle metaboreflex remains after 5 weeks of detraining.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".