Influence of Different Breathing Frequencies on the Severity of Inspiratory Muscle Fatigue Induced by High-Intensity Front Crawl Swimming
Key result
Breathing 1 breath every fourth stroke during high-intensity swimming caused a greater decrease in maximal inspiratory pressure compared to 1 breath every second stroke (21% vs 11%; p<0.05).
Why the study?
Does reduced breathing frequency increase inspiratory muscle fatigue in collegiate swimmers during high-intensity front crawl swimming?
Structured PICO
Does reduced breathing frequency increase inspiratory muscle fatigue in collegiate swimmers during high-intensity front crawl swimming?
P
Population
10 collegiate swimmers who performed high-intensity front crawl swimming.
I
Intervention
High-intensity front crawl swimming (2 x 200-m at 90% race pace) with reduced breathing frequency (1 breath every fourth stroke, B4)
C
Comparator
High-intensity front crawl swimming with standard breathing frequency (1 breath every second stroke, B2)
O
Outcome
Magnitude of inspiratory muscle fatigue (measured by Maximal inspiratory pressure [PImax] from residual volume before and after swimming)surrogate
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 21% vs 11%
p-value: p=<0.05
Reduced breathing frequency during high-intensity swimming leads to greater inspiratory muscle fatigue despite lower blood lactate levels.
Authors
Discussion
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Implication
May warrant caution with reduced breathing frequency in high-intensity swimming; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before practice change.
Cite This Study
Jakovljević et al. (2009) studied Healthy collegiate swimmers (n=10). Breathing frequency of 1 breath every fourth stroke (B4) vs. Breathing frequency of 1 breath every second stroke (B2) was evaluated on Decrease in maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) from baseline (p=<0.05). Breathing 1 breath every fourth stroke during high-intensity swimming caused a greater decrease in maximal inspiratory pressure compared to 1 breath every second stroke (21% vs 11%; p<0.05).