The physiological effects of breath‐holding during high‐intensity exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological effects of breath‐holding during high‐intensity exercise. Twenty participants (age: 23 ± 4 years, 10 females) performed 20 s sprints of simultaneous arm and leg ergometry exercise, under free‐breathing (FB) and breath‐holding (BH) conditions. Identical power outputs were sustained for both breathing conditions. Heart rate was significantly higher under the breath‐holding condition during exercise (FB = 118 ± 12 bpm versus BH = 131 ± 14 bpm; p < 0.001) but lower for 5 min post‐exercise (FB = 110 ± 16 bpm, BH = 102 ± 15 bpm, p = 0.003). Systolic blood pressure was higher under the breath‐holding condition post‐exercise (FB = 142 ± 18 mmHg, BH = 151 ± 15 mmHg, p = 0.03). Muscle deoxygenated hemoglobin was unchanged between conditions during exercise (FB = 2.7 ± 1.7 μM, BH = 2.6 ± 1.7 μM, p = 0.37) and no difference in post‐exercise blood lactate concentration was observed between conditions (FB = 9.3 ± 3.5 mmol.L −1 , BH = 8.2 ± 2.5 mmol.L −1 , p = 0.15). End‐tidal partial pressure of oxygen was reduced (FB = 111 ± 11 mmHg, BH = 76 ± 14 mmHg, p < 0.001) and oxygen uptake was increased (FB = 2.36 ± 0.63 L.min −1 , BH = 4.52 ± 0.73 L.min −1 , p < 0.001) under the breath‐holding condition immediately post‐exercise. Exercise‐induced tachycardia prevailed over apnea‐induced bradycardia during exercise, but residual effects of breath‐holding were evidenced by the observed bradycardia during recovery. These data suggest that intrinsic oxygen stores were sufficient to sustain the aerobic energy contribution during 20 s high‐intensity exercise while breath‐holding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".