Sports bra tightness affects respiratory muscle fatigue, breathing pattern, and perceptual responses during running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elite female athletes are vulnerable to respiratory limitations, and sports bra tightness may contribute to this phenomenon. Since the underband is located over the diaphragmatic ribcage, its tightness may affect ribcage mechanics, breathing muscles coordination, and fatigue. Seventeen trained junior female runners (VO2max = 53 ± 4 mL/kg/min) ran on a treadmill at personal race pace until exhaustion (range 15–30 min) in three standardised underband tightnesses. Ventilation (VE) and breathing pattern were recorded via Opto-electronic plethysmography throughout the run. Spirometry, maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), and leg and breathing effort questionnaires were collected pre- and post-run. MIP decreased more with the tight (−9.8 ± 8.3%) than the loose underband (−1.1 ± 7.3%) (p = 0.002). With greater underband tightness, VE was increased (+8.4 ± 13.1 % tight vs. loose, p = 0.03), inspiratory capacity was repressed (4.2 ± 5.1 %, p = 0.03) and thoraco-abdominal coordination was altered with earlier abdominal breathing sequencing. Since reduced underband tightness may be advantageous for ventilation via attenuated diaphragm fatigue, sports bras might be improved with updated fitting procedures or novel garment designs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".