The Effects and Impact of Breath Holding During Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The physiological response to breath holding includes bradycardia and peripheral vasoconstriction, which contrasts with that of exercise which includes tachycardia and peripheral vasodilation. This raises the question as to what the physiological response is to breath holding during exercise. During low-intensity exercise, the breath holding response of bradycardia and peripheral vasoconstriction prevails over the exercise response of tachycardia and peripheral vasodilation, but nevertheless the exercise may be sustained. Due to the lack of availability of extrinsic oxygen (O 2 ) from the atmosphere during breath holding, the energy demands can be met by increased reliance on intrinsic O 2 stores (i.e., O 2 that was in the body before the breath hold) via increased O 2 extraction at the muscle compared with exercise while breathing, or increased contributions from anaerobic energy systems. During high-intensity exercise of short duration, the exercise response may prevail over the breath holding response due to the increased parasympathetic withdrawal and sympathetic drive of higher intensity exercise. If breath holding during high-intensity exercise was sustained for long enough, the breath holding response may eventually overcome the exercise response, although this may be difficult due to the inverse relationship between exercise intensity and breath hold duration.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".