| Title |
Inspiratory muscle training improves cycling time-trial performance and anaerobic work capacity but not critical power
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-007-0551-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael A. Johnson, Graham R. Sharpe, Peter I. Brown |
| Abstract |
We examined whether inspiratory muscle training (IMT) improved cycling time-trial performance and changed the relationship between limit work (W (lim)) and limit time (T (lim)), which is described by the parameters critical power (CP) and anaerobic work capacity (AWC). Eighteen male cyclists were assigned to either a pressure-threshold IMT or sham hypoxic-training placebo (PLC) group. Prior to and following a 6 week intervention subjects completed a 25-km cycling time-trial and three constant-power tests to establish the W (lim)-T (lim) relationship. Constant-power tests were prescribed to elicit exercise intolerance within 3-10 (Ex1), 10-20 (Ex2), and 20-30 (Ex3) min. Maximal inspiratory mouth pressure increased by (mean +/- SD) 17.1 +/- 12.2% following IMT (P < 0.01) and was accompanied by a 2.66 +/- 2.51% improvement in 25-km time-trial performance (P < 0.05); there were no changes following PLC. Constant-power cycling endurance was unchanged following PLC, as was CP (pre vs. post: 249 +/- 32 vs. 250 +/- 32 W) and AWC (30.7 +/- 12.7 vs. 30.1 +/- 12.5 kJ). Following IMT Ex1 and Ex3 cycling endurance improved by 18.3 +/- 15.1 and 15.3 +/- 19.1% (P < 0.05), respectively, CP was unchanged (264 +/- 62 vs. 263 +/- 61 W), but AWC increased from 24.8 +/- 5.6 to 29.0 +/- 8.4 kJ (P < 0.05). In conclusion, these data provide novel evidence that improvements in constant-power and cycling time-trial performance following IMT in cyclists may be explained, in part, by an increase in AWC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 144 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 58 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 26 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,778,510
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,960
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,448
of 82,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 82,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.