Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 96Cardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and TrainingSport Psychology and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Endurance training of respiratory muscles improves cycling performance in fit young cyclists

Open access

Abstract

Background Whether or not isolated endurance training of the respiratory muscles improves whole-body endurance exercise performance is controversial, with some studies reporting enhancements of 50% or more, and others reporting no change. Twenty fit (VO2 max 56.0 ml/kg/min), experienced cyclists were randomly assigned to three groups. The experimental group (n = 10) trained their respiratory muscles via 20, 45 min sessions of hyperpnea. The placebo group (n = 4) underwent "sham" training (20, 5 min sessions), and the control group (n = 6) did no training. Results After training, the experimental group increased their respiratory muscle endurance capacity by 12%. Performance on a bicycle time trial test designed to last about 40 min improved by 4.7% (9 of 10 subjects showed improvement). There were no test-re-test improvements in either respiratory muscle or bicycle exercise endurance performance in the placebo group, nor in the control group. After training, the experimental group had significantly higher ventilatory output and VO2, and lower PCO2, during constant work-rate exercise; the placebo and control groups did not show these changes. The perceived respiratory effort was unchanged in spite of the higher ventilation rate after training. Conclusions The results suggest that respiratory muscle endurance training improves cycling performance in fit, experienced cyclists. The relative hyperventilation with no change in respiratory effort sensations suggest that respiratory muscle training allows subjects to tolerate the higher exercise ventilatory response without more dyspnea. Whether or not this can explain the enhanced performance is unknown.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In fit experienced cyclists, 20 sessions of respiratory muscle endurance training increased respiratory muscle endurance by 12% and improved ~40-min cycling time-trial performance by 4.7%, with higher exercise ventilation and VO2 but unchanged dyspnea. The mechanism linking these changes remains unknown.

Key findings

  • The RMET group (n = 10) increased sustainable ventilatory capacity by 12%, while respiratory muscle strength (maximal inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressures) did not change significantly.
  • Time-trial performance improved in 9 of 10 RMET subjects; average performance time fell from 47.1 ± 5.5 min to 44.9 ± 5.5 min, a 4.75% reduction (P < 0.05). The percent change was -4.75 ± 1.6% in RMET versus 0.46 ± 1.8% in control/placebo (P = 0.015).
  • After RMET, VE and VO2 during constant work-rate exercise were significantly higher, while heart rate and perceived breathing/leg effort were unchanged. The change in VE correlated with improved time-trial performance (r = -0.522, P = 0.0183).
  • Control and placebo groups showed no significant changes in respiratory muscle endurance or cycling performance.

Methods

  • Twenty fit, experienced cyclists/triathletes (VO2 max 56.0 ml/kg/min) were assigned to RMET (n = 10), placebo sham training (n = 4), or no-training control (n = 6); the intervention lasted 4 weeks with 20 sessions. Pre- and post-training tests included sustainable ventilatory capacity, maximal mouth pressures, VO2 max, constant work-rate cycling endurance, and a fixed-work time-trial performance test.
  • RMET used hyperpnea with target ventilation; placebo used 5-min low-intensity sessions; controls did no respiratory muscle training. Control and placebo groups were combined after no significant differences were found between them.
  • Analyses used two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks for non-normal time-trial data, and Spearman rank correlation for the VE-performance relation; test reproducibility was assessed by coefficient of variation.

Limitations

  • Stated: the mechanism behind either the enhanced performance or the enhanced ventilatory response after RMET remains unknown; the study avoided invasive measures that could have provided mechanistic insight.
  • Stated: small sample size, particularly the placebo (n = 4) and control (n = 6) groups, led to combining those groups for statistical comparisons.
  • Evident in the text: the abstract reports 45-min training sessions and lower PCO2, whereas the Methods state experimental sessions lasted 30 min and the Results state PETCO2 was not significantly different after training; these inconsistencies are not reconciled. The VE-performance relationship is correlational and cannot establish causation.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6793-4-9

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 13 Not checked · 49 Own results and interpretations

16 more claims

Create a free account to see all 62 claims and to verify the 36 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25

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?

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.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Holm, P., Sattler, A., & Fregosi, R. F.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Fregosi, Ralph F
Venue
BMC Physiology
Published
2004-05-06
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
1472-6793 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150965621
Cited by
96
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • University of Arizona
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL051056)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
respiratory muscle training, endurance training, cycling performance, hyperpnea, respiratory muscle endurance, ventilatory response, exercise tolerance, cyclists, hyperventilation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bicycling, Breathing Exercises, Carbon Dioxide, Dyspnea, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen Consumption, Partial Pressure, Physical Endurance, Physical Fitness, Pulmonary Ventilation, Respiratory Muscles, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Exercise Tolerance

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.