Sex Differences in Respiratory Responses to Progressive Hypoxia During Moderate Exercise

Background: Hypoxia challenges the regulation of arterial oxygenation (SaO 2 ), eliciting a compensatory increase in ventilation (Formula: see textE) to preserve blood-gas homeostasis. However, the ability to maintain blood-gas homeostasis during hypoxic exercise may differ between sexes due to differences in chemoreflex drive and the mechanical capacity to augment ventilation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sex differences in ventilatory and blood-gas responses to progressive hypoxia during moderate walking exercise. Specifically, we asked whether females would be more susceptible to hypoxemia. We hypothesized that females would exhibit a smaller ventilatory response and a less steep ventilatory CO 2 -response (ΔFormula: see textE/ΔPaCO 2 ) compared with males, resulting in a greater reduction in SaO 2 during progressive hypoxia. Methods: Twenty-six physically active adults (15M: age 35.3±9.4; Formula: see textO 2 max 54.3±15.5 mL/kg/min, 11F: age 36.2±9.0; Formula: see textO 2 max 44.6±5.2 mL/kg/min) were studies during two visits. Visit 1: we determined the participants’ maximal oxygen uptake (Formula: see textO 2 max) during an incremental treadmill test. Visit 2: participants walked at ~50% of their Formula: see textO 2 max while we reduced the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) progressively every 5 minutes (0.21, 0.19, 0.17, 0.15, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11). Arterial blood samples were collected from a brachial artery catheter during the final 30 seconds of each stage; cardiometabolic and ventilatory data were averaged over the final minute of each stage. The test ended when peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) fell below 70%. Because 0.13 FiO 2 was the lowest stage completed by all participants, Δ responses were calculated from 0.21 to 0.13 FiO 2 . Independent t-tests compared Δ responses between sexes; data are mean±SD, significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in ΔSaO 2 between sexes across hypoxia (M: −22.0±3.7%; F: −22.8±5.5%; p = 0.89). Males had higher arterial oxygen content (CaO 2 ) than females across all stages (M: 20.6±1.2 to 16.0±1.4 mL O 2 ·dL -1 ; F: 18.5±1.1 to 13.8±2.0 mL O 2 ·dL -1 ), but the ΔCaO 2 during hypoxia was not significantly different between sexes (M: −4.6±0.7; F: −4.7±1.4 mL O 2 ·dL -1 ; p = 0.86). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the change in arterial CO 2 (ΔPaCO 2 ) between sexes (M: −5.8±1.5 mmHg; F: −6.5±3.6 mmHg, p = 0.51). In contrast, males exhibited a significantly greater increase in ventilation (ΔFormula: see textE: +13.9±4.2 L·min -1 ) than females (+8.6±2.7 L·min -1 ; p = 0.003). Consequently, the ventilatory CO 2 -response (ΔFormula: see textE/ΔPaCO 2 ) was steeper in males (−2.46±0.66 L·min -1 ·mmHg -1 ) compared with females (−1.57±0.68 L·min -1 ·mmHg -1 ; p = 0.004). However, when ΔFormula: see textE was expressed relative to maximal ventilatory capacity (%Formula: see textEmax), there was no sex difference (M: 8.8±2.6% vs F: 8.3±2.8%; p = 0.68). Conclusion: Females were not more susceptible to hypoxemia than males; both sexes showed comparable reductions in SaO 2 during moderate exercise in progressive hypoxia. Reductions in PaCO 2 were also similar, indicating comparable ventilatory drive. Although males exhibited a larger absolute increase in Formula: see textE and a steeper ventilatory CO 2 -response, this difference disappeared when ΔFormula: see textE was expressed relative to %Formula: see textEmax. These findings indicate that apparent sex differences in ventilation during hypoxia largely reflect differences in ventilatory capacity rather than true differences in oxygenation or ventilatory drive. Taken together, these findings challenge the assumption that females are inherently more susceptible to hypoxemia or have a lower ventilatory drive than males during moderate hypoxic exercise. Funding: NIH T32 DK007352, UL1 TR002377 This abstract was presented at the American Physiology Summit 2026 and is only available in HTML format. There is no downloadable file or PDF version. The Physiology editorial board was not involved in the peer review process.