Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Single-blind randomized clinical trial shows modest benefits of respiratory muscle training in CrossFit athletes post-COVID-19 infection, indicating potential lung function improvement.
The Elevation Training Mask 2.0 (ETM) is a respiratory muscle device, designed to simulate altitude training. It works by reducing airflow through a valve system. During exercise, ETM could restore respiratory damage from post-infection phase of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), allowing ventilatory restriction that works as resistance training for respiratory muscles. To comparatively evaluate the spirometry parameters in CrossFit® practitioners training using ETM (EG), compared to a control group (CG). In a single-blind randomized clinical trial, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations, 20 trained male athletes were randomly assigned to an EG and a CG using simulated ETM device. Both groups completed 12 weeks of CrossFit® training after 1 month of finishing SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. Pre- (T1) and post-training (T2) testing included assessment of lung function and respiratory muscle strength. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed comparing EG and CG in any of spirometry parameters evaluated. Nevertheless, significant differences (p < 0.05) in behavior were observed throughout the 36 training sessions for maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) with a strong effect (η²p = 0.693). In addition, significant improvements (p < 0.05) were observed in MIP and MVV exclusively in the EG when comparing T1 vs. T2. The findings suggest that the inclusion of ETM in a 12-week CrossFit® training program, in athletes returning to exercise post-SARS-CoV-2 infection, may have modest benefits compared to CG on lung function and respiratory muscle strength. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (ID NCT06806124). 25/01/2025 retrospectively registered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernández-Lázaro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: