Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 76 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effect of Respiratory Muscle Training on Exercise Performance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access

Abstract

Objectives Two distinct types of specific respiratory muscle training (RMT), i.e. respiratory muscle strength (resistive/threshold) and endurance (hyperpnoea) training, have been established to improve the endurance performance of healthy individuals. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to determine the factors that affect the change in endurance performance after RMT in healthy subjects. Data sources A computerized search was performed without language restriction in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and references of original studies and reviews were searched for further relevant studies. Review methods RMT studies with healthy individuals assessing changes in endurance exercise performance by maximal tests (constant load, time trial, intermittent incremental, conventional [non-intermittent] incremental) were screened and abstracted by two independent investigators. A multiple linear regression model was used to identify effects of subjects' fitness, type of RMT (inspiratory or combined inspiratory/expiratory muscle strength training, respiratory muscle endurance training), type of exercise test, test duration and type of sport (rowing, running, swimming, cycling) on changes in performance after RMT. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect of RMT on endurance performance in those studies providing the necessary data. Results The multiple linear regression analysis including 46 original studies revealed that less fit subjects benefit more from RMT than highly trained athletes (6.0% per 10 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹ decrease in maximal oxygen uptake, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8, 10.2%; p = 0.005) and that improvements do not differ significantly between inspiratory muscle strength and respiratory muscle endurance training (p = 0.208), while combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength training seems to be superior in improving performance, although based on only 6 studies (+12.8% compared with inspiratory muscle strength training, 95% CI 3.6, 22.0%; p = 0.006). Furthermore, constant load tests (+16%, 95% CI 10.2, 22.9%) and intermittent incremental tests (+18.5%, 95% CI 10.8, 26.3%) detect changes in endurance performance better than conventional incremental tests (both p < 0.001) with no difference between time trials and conventional incremental tests (p = 0.286). With increasing test duration, improvements in performance are greater (+0.4% per minute test duration, 95% CI 0.1, 0.6%; p = 0.011) and the type of sport does not influence the magnitude of improvements (all p > 0.05). The meta-analysis, performed on eight controlled trials revealed a significant improvement in performance after RMT, which was detected by constant load tests, time trials and intermittent incremental tests, but not by conventional incremental tests. Conclusion RMT improves endurance exercise performance in healthy individuals with greater improvements in less fit individuals and in sports of longer durations. The two most common types of RMT (inspiratory muscle strength and respiratory muscle endurance training) do not differ significantly in their effect, while combined inspiratory/expiratory strength training might be superior. Improvements are similar between different types of sports. Changes in performance can be detected by constant load tests, time trials and intermittent incremental tests only. Thus, all types of RMT can be used to improve exercise performance in healthy subjects but care must be taken regarding the test used to investigate the improvements.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In healthy individuals, respiratory muscle training (RMT) improves endurance exercise performance, with larger gains in less fit subjects and longer-duration tests; effects are similar across sports and between inspiratory strength and endurance training, while combined inspiratory/expiratory strength training may be superior. RMT effects are detected by constant-load, time-trial, and intermittent incremental tests but not by conventional incremental tests.

Key findings

  • In the multiple linear regression model including 46 original studies, less fit subjects benefited more from RMT: 6.0% per 10 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ decrease in maximal oxygen uptake (95% CI 1.8–10.2%; p = 0.005). Combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength training (RMST.INEX) improved performance more than inspiratory muscle strength training (RMST.IN) by +12.8% (95% CI 3.6–22.0%; p = 0.006; based on 6 studies), while RMET and RMST.IN did not differ significantly (p = 0.208).
  • Constant load tests (+16.5%, 95% CI 10.2–22.8%; p < 0.001) and intermittent incremental tests (+18.5%, 95% CI 10.8–26.3%; p < 0.001) detected changes better than conventional incremental tests; time trials did not differ significantly from conventional incremental tests (p = 0.286). Improvements were greater with increasing test duration (+0.4% per minute, 95% CI 0.1–0.6%; p = 0.011), and type of sport did not influence the magnitude of improvement (all p > 0.05).
  • The meta-analysis of 8 controlled trials found a significant overall improvement after RMT (standardised mean difference [SMD] 1.11, 95% CI 0.61–1.61; p < 0.001; I² = 71%). Subgroup analyses were significant for constant load tests (SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.20–1.12; p = 0.005), time trials (SMD 1.85, 95% CI 0.88–2.82; p < 0.001), and intermittent incremental tests (SMD 2.95, 95% CI 1.12–4.80; p = 0.002), but not conventional incremental tests (SMD 0.30, 95% CI −0.20–0.79; p = 0.30). Overall improvement for RMT over control was 11%, with subgroup differences of 21% for constant load tests, 2% for time trials, 13% for intermittent incremental tests, and 7% for conventional incremental tests.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of original studies assessing RMT (respiratory muscle strength training or respiratory muscle endurance training) on endurance performance in healthy humans. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 31 October 2011 without language restriction; 49 studies were selected, and 46 were included in the multiple linear regression model after excluding 3 for missing test duration.
  • Eligible exercise tests were constant load tests, time trials, intermittent incremental tests, or conventional (non-intermittent) incremental tests. The main outcome was relative change in endurance performance (test duration or maximal distance for fixed-duration time trials).
  • A multiple linear regression model using generalised estimating equations (exchangeable correlation structure) included fitness, type of training (RMST.IN, RMST.INEX, RMET), type of test, test duration, and type of sport. A separate meta-analysis was performed on controlled trials with sham-training or no-training control groups and sufficient data, using a random effects model, I² statistics for heterogeneity, and a funnel plot for publication bias.

Limitations

  • The paper states that training duration/intensity, exercise test intensity, and respiratory sensation variables were not included in the regression model to prevent collinearity or because too many studies lacked data; the funnel plot showed potential publication bias, with missing small studies with negative outcomes; and the meta-analysis included only 8 controlled trials. The authors also note that RMST.INEX evidence came from only 6 studies by 3 research groups, with physical improvements from one group using constant load tests only, so direct comparisons are needed.
  • The text makes evident additional constraints: methodological quality was low (median 29%, range 14–86%), only 43% of studies had a sham-training group, and the meta-analysis studies were not fully representative of the regression-model studies (average change +15% vs +5%, p = 0.002; average fitness 2.6 vs 3.1, p = 0.065). Heterogeneity was moderate to substantial (I² = 71% overall; 78.3% for test-type comparison).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03262290

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 27 Not checked · 85 Own results and interpretations

63 more claims

Create a free account to see all 113 claims and to verify the 75 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19

Create a free account to see these claims.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

1 more claim about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 112 references

Cited by

Items 201–300 of 409

Metadata

Authors
Illi, S. K., Held, U., Frank, I., & Spengler, C. M.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Spengler, Christina M.
Venue
Sports Medicine
Published
2012-08
Volume
42
Issue
8
Pages
707-724
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
OpenAlex
W1585284281
Cited by
411
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (3200B0, 116777)
  • Bundesamt für Sport
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
respiratory muscle training, endurance performance, inspiratory muscle strength training, expiratory muscle strength training, respiratory muscle endurance training, VO2max, test length, training status, healthy individuals, rowing, running, swimming, cycling, time trial, incremental test, constant load test
MeSH terms
Breathing Exercises, Humans, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Endurance, Respiratory Muscles, Linear Models, Databases, Bibliographic, Muscle Strength, Athletic Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.