Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ventilatory muscle strength and endurance training

Leith, D. E., Bradley, M.·1976·Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

We studied respiratory mechanics in young volunteers before and after 5-wk training programs limited to the ventilatory muscles. Four strength trainers (S) performed repeated static maximum inspiratory and expiratory maneuvers against obstructed airways. Four endurance trainers (E) performed voluntary normocarbic hyperpnea to exhaustion. Subjects spent 30–45 min each day in these exercises, 5 days a week. Four control subjects (C) did no training. We attempted to minimize the effect of learning. S increased pressure maximums by about 55%, but vital capacity and total lung capacity by only about 4%. Initially all subjects could sustain hyperpnea at about 81% of their control 15-s maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) for 15 min; E increased this to about 96% and increased their MVV by 14% as well. No other statistically significant changes were recognized in any group. We conclude that ventilatory muscle strength or endurance can be specifically increased by appropriate ventilatory muscle training programs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jappl.1976.41.4.508

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Leith, D. E., & Bradley, M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
1976-10-01
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
508-516
ISSN
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
Cited by
396
References
0
Language
en

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.

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.