Effects of a 6-Week Repeated-Sprint Training With Voluntary Hypoventilation at Low and High Lung Volume on Repeated-Sprint Ability in Female Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of repeated-sprint training with voluntary hypoventilation at low (RSH-VHL) and high (RS-VHH) lung volume on repeated-sprint ability (RSA) in female athletes. METHODS: Over a 6-week period, 24 female soccer players completed 12 sessions of repeated 30-m running sprints with end-expiratory breath holding (RSH-VHL, n = 8), end-inspiratory breath holding (RS-VHH, n = 8), or unrestricted breathing (RS-URB, n = 8). Before and after training, a running RSA test consisting of performing 30-m all-out sprints until exhaustion was implemented. RESULTS: From before to after training, the number of sprints completed during the RSA test was increased in both RSH-VHL (19.3 [0.9] vs 22.6 [0.9]; P < .01) and RS-VHH (19.3 [1.5] vs 20.5 [1.7]; P < .01) but not in RS-URB (19.4 [1.3] vs 19.5 [1.7]; P = .67). The mean velocity and the percentage decrement score calculated over sprints 1 to 17 were, respectively, higher (82.2% [1.8%] vs 84.6% [2.1%] of maximal velocity) and lower (23.7% [3.1%] vs 19.4% [3.2%]) in RSH-VHL (P < .01), whereas they remained unchanged in RS-VHH and RS-URB. The mean arterial oxygen saturation recorded during training at the end of the sprints was lower in RSH-VHL (92.1% [0.4%]) than in RS-VHH (97.3% [0.1%]) and RS-URB (97.8% [0.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that female athletes can benefit from the RSH-VHL intervention to improve RSA. The performance gains may have been limited by the short sprinting distance with end-expiratory breath holding, which provoked only moderate hypoxemia. The increase in the number of sprints in RS-VHH seems to show that factors other than hypoxia may have played a role in RSA improvement.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".