Sports Bra Restriction on Respiratory Mechanics during Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We set out to understand how underband tightness or pressure of a sports bra relates to respiratory function and the mechanical work of breathing ( during exercise. Our secondary purpose was to quantify the effects of underband pressure on O 2 during submaximal running. METHODS: Nine highly trained female runners with normal pulmonary function completed maximal and submaximal running in three levels of underband restriction: loose, self-selected, and tight. RESULTS: During maximal exercise, we observed a significantly greater during the tight condition (350 ± 78 J·min -1 ) compared with the loose condition (301 ± 78 J·min -1 ; P < 0.05), and a 5% increase in minute ventilation ( ) during the tight condition compared with the loose condition ( P < 0.05). The pattern of breathing also differed between the two conditions; the greater maximal during the tight condition was achieved by a higher breathing frequency (57 ± 6 vs. 52 ± 7 breaths·min -1 ; P < 0.05), despite tidal volume being significantly lower in the tight condition compared with the loose condition (1.97 ± 0.20 vs. 2.05 ± 0.23 L; P < 0.05). During steady-state submaximal running, O 2 increased 1.3 ± 1.1% (range: -0.3 to 3.2%, P < 0.05) in the tight condition compared with the loose condition. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory function may become compromised by the pressure exerted by the underband of a sports bra when women self-select their bra size. In the current study, loosening the underband pressure resulted in a decreased work of breathing, changed the ventilatory breathing pattern to deeper, less frequent breaths, and decreased submaximal oxygen uptake (improved running economy). Our findings suggest sports bra underbands can impair breathing mechanics during exercise and influence whole-body metabolic rate.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".