Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 12High Altitude and HypoxiaCardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and Training

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Sex-Specific Effects of Respiratory Muscle Endurance Training on Cycling Time Trial Performance in Normoxia and Hypoxia

Open access
Chambault, Julie, Grand, Grégorine, Kayser, Bengt·2021·Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract

Objectives: We tested the hypotheses that respiratory muscle endurance training (RMET) improves endurance cycling performance differently in women and men and more so in hypoxia than in normoxia. Design: A prospective pre–post cross-over study with two testing conditions. Methods: Healthy and active women (seven, 24 ± 4 years, mean ± standard deviation [SD]) and men (seven, 27 ± 5 years) performed incremental cycling to determine maximum oxygen consumption (VO 2peak) and power output (W peak) and on different days two 10-km cycling time trials (TTs) in normoxia and normobaric hypoxia (FiO 2, 0.135, ~3,500 m equivalent), in a balanced randomized order. Next they performed supervised RMET in normoxia (4 weeks, 5 days/week, 30 min/day eucapnic hyperpnea at ~60% predicted maximum voluntary ventilation) followed by identical post-tests. During TTs, heart rate, ear oximetry reading, and W peak were recorded. Results: The VO 2peak and W peak values were unchanged after RMET. The TT was improved by 7 ± 6% (p < 0.001) in normoxia and 16 ± 6% (p < 0.001) in hypoxia. The difference between normoxic and hypoxic TT was smaller after RMET as compared with that before RMET (14% vs. 21%, respectively, p < 0.001). All effects were greater in women (p < 0.001). The RMET did not change the heart rate or ear oximetry reading during TTs. Conclusion: We found a greater effect of RMET on cycling TT performance in women than in men, an effect more pronounced in hypoxia. These findings are congruent with the contention of a more pronounced performance-limiting role of the respiratory system during endurance exercise in hypoxia compared with normoxia and more so in women whose respiratory system is undersized compared with that of men.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In a pre–post cross-over pilot, 4 weeks of supervised respiratory muscle endurance training (RMET) improved 10-km cycling time-trial performance in healthy active adults, with larger gains in hypoxia than normoxia and larger gains in women than men. VO2peak and Wpeak were unchanged.

Key findings

  • RMET improved 10-km cycling TT performance by 7 ± 6% in normoxia and 16 ± 6% in hypoxia (both p < 0.001); the normoxic–hypoxic TT difference was smaller after RMET than before (14% vs. 21%, p < 0.001).
  • Effects of RMET on TT performance were greater in women than in men (pre–post: p < 0.001; normoxia–hypoxia: p < 0.001).
  • VO2peak and Wpeak did not change after RMET (VO2peak p = 0.115; Wpeak p = 0.959), and peak HR was unchanged.
  • RMET did not change mean or final HR or ear oximetry during TTs; women had higher average hypoxic SpO2 than men (pre-RMET 85 ± 2 vs. 81 ± 3%; post-RMET 85 ± 4 vs. 80 ± 2%, p < 0.001), with no RMET effect per se.

Methods

  • Prospective pre–post cross-over study with two testing conditions; 14 healthy recreationally active participants (7 women, 24 ± 4 years, 80 ± 30 min exercise/week; 7 men, 27 ± 5 years, 154 ± 47 min exercise/week).
  • Participants performed incremental cycling to determine VO2peak and Wpeak, then two 10-km cycling TTs in normoxia and normobaric hypoxia (FiO2 0.135, ~3,500 m equivalent) in balanced randomized order; after 4 weeks of supervised RMET in normoxia (5 days/week, 30 min/day eucapnic hyperpnea at ~60% predicted maximum voluntary ventilation), they repeated identical post-tests.
  • Analysis used repeated-measures ANOVA for TT performance with factors woman/man and normoxia/hypoxia; ANOVA or mixed-effects modeling for other analyses; Sidak post hoc; significance set at p < 0.05.

Limitations

  • Stated: no sham/placebo arm, so placebo/nocebo or training effects cannot be fully excluded; authors note meta-analytic evidence that sham presence did not alter RMT effects and that unchanged VO2peak supports this.
  • Stated: the study did not quantify respiratory muscle force/endurance, respiratory data during TTs, locomotor or respiratory muscle fatigue, metaboreflex/cardiovascular changes, or mechanistic explanations; sample size was small and needs replication; men were somewhat more physically active/better trained than women; no TT familiarization sessions; and the 10-km TT duration was longer in hypoxia than normoxia.
  • Evident: very small sex-specific subgroups (7 women; 6 men with post-RMET CPET data because one measurement was lost) limit precision and generalizability, and baseline activity/VO2peak differences between sexes may confound the sex-specific findings.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphys.2021.700620

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Individual times of the 10-km time trials before and after respiratory muscle endurance training (RMET). **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. Pre–post RMET normoxia and hypoxia means were different between men and women: normoxia before RMET, p < 0.001, hypoxia before RMET, p < 0.001, normoxia after RMET, p < 0.001, and hypoxia after RMET, p < 0.05 (Sidak multiple comparison adjusted).
Figure 1 Individual times of the 10-km time trials before and after respiratory muscle endurance training (RMET). **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. Pre–post RMET normoxia and hypoxia means were different between men and women: normoxia before RMET, p < 0.001, hypoxia before RMET, p < 0.001, normoxia after RMET, p < 0.001, and hypoxia after RMET, p < 0.05 (Sidak multiple comparison adjusted).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 30 Not checked · 40 Own results and interpretations

28 more claims

Create a free account to see all 70 claims and to verify the 40 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 27
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18

Create a free account to see these claims.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kayser, 2005, Why is endurance performance decreased at high altitude?, Schweiz. Z. Med. Traumatol., 53, 54

Cited by

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Chambault, J., Grand, G., & Kayser, B.
Affiliations
University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Kayser, Bengt
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Published
2021-08-06
Volume
12
Pages
700620-700620
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3191604909
Cited by
12
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Reuter Foundation
  • Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › High Altitude and Hypoxia
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
respiratory muscle endurance training, cycling time trial performance, sex differences, hypoxia, normobaric hypoxia, endurance cycling, VO2max, ventilatory capacity, women

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.