The Effect of Waistbands on Intra-Abdominal Pressure and Respiratory Mechanics During Bodyweight Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Leahy, MG, Kipp, S, and Sheel, AW. The effect of waistbands on intra-abdominal pressure and respiratory mechanics during bodyweight exercise. J Strength Cond Res 38(12): 2047-2054, 2024-Athletic apparel is often designed with high-waisted, elastic bands around the abdomen to provide comfort and support during functional exercises. The abdominal musculature aids in both active respiration and trunk stability during the exercise, but whether high-waistband athletic garments affect pulmonary function and respiratory mechanics is unknown. Ten healthy women participated in a single-visit study. Subjects were fitted with esophageal and gastric balloon-tipped catheters and completed three bouts of isometric and dynamic bodyweight squats, lunges, and planks, during which ventilation and pulmonary pressures were continuously recorded. Resting pulmonary function was unchanged by high-waistband garments. During isometric squatting exercise, peak abdominal pressure was significantly greater while wearing high-waistband garments (17 ± 6 cmH 2 O), relative to low-waistband garments (15 ± 6 cmH 2 O, p = 0.032). The work of breathing was reduced when completing dynamic squat exercise in a high-waistband garment (16.2 ± 3.9 J·min -1 ), relative to a low-waistband garment (18.6 ± 5.7 J·min -1 , p = 0.026). High waistbands had no effect on abdominal pressures or pulmonary mechanics during lunge or plank exercises. We believe our findings indicate that high-waistband garments have the capacity to alter abdominal and ventilatory mechanics during bodyweight squatting exercises but are unlikely to have an effect during other exercise movements.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".