Cargando…

Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols are typically performed using pressure threshold loading with inspirations initiated from residual volume (RV). We aimed to compare effects of three different IMT protocols on maximal inspiratory pressures (PImax) and maximal inspiratory flow...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Hollebeke, Marine, Gosselink, Rik, Langer, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343384
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.576595
_version_ 1783624459208359936
author Van Hollebeke, Marine
Gosselink, Rik
Langer, Daniel
author_facet Van Hollebeke, Marine
Gosselink, Rik
Langer, Daniel
author_sort Van Hollebeke, Marine
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols are typically performed using pressure threshold loading with inspirations initiated from residual volume (RV). We aimed to compare effects of three different IMT protocols on maximal inspiratory pressures (PImax) and maximal inspiratory flow (V̇Imax) at three different lung volumes. We hypothesized that threshold loading performed from functional residual capacity (FRC) or tapered flow resistive loading (initiated from RV) would improve inspiratory muscle function over a larger range of lung volumes in comparison with the standard protocol. METHODS: 48 healthy volunteers (42% male, age: 48 ± 9 years, PImax: 110 ± 28%pred, [mean ± SD]) were randomly assigned to perform three daily IMT sessions of pressure threshold loading (either initiated from RV or from FRC) or tapered flow resistive loading (initiated from RV) for 4 weeks. Sessions consisted of 30 breaths against the highest tolerable load. Before and after the training period, PImax was measured at RV, FRC, and midway between FRC and total lung capacity (1/2 IC). V̇Imax was measured at the same lung volumes against a range of external threshold loads. RESULTS: While PImax increased significantly at RV and at FRC in the group performing the standard training protocol (pressure threshold loading from RV), it increased significantly at all lung volumes in the two other training groups (all p < 0.05). No significant changes in V̇Imax were observed in the group performing the standard protocol. Increases of V̇Imax were significantly larger at all lung volumes after tapered flow resistive loading, and at higher lung volumes (i.e., FRC and 1/2 IC) after pressure threshold loading from FRC in comparison with the standard protocol (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Only training with tapered flow resistive loading and pressure threshold loading from functional residual capacity resulted in consistent improvements in respiratory muscle function at higher lung volumes, whereas improvements after the standard protocol (pressure threshold loading from residual volume) were restricted to gains in PImax at lower lung volumes. Further research is warranted to investigate whether these results can be confirmed in larger samples of both healthy subjects and patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7744620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77446202020-12-18 Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial Van Hollebeke, Marine Gosselink, Rik Langer, Daniel Front Physiol Physiology INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols are typically performed using pressure threshold loading with inspirations initiated from residual volume (RV). We aimed to compare effects of three different IMT protocols on maximal inspiratory pressures (PImax) and maximal inspiratory flow (V̇Imax) at three different lung volumes. We hypothesized that threshold loading performed from functional residual capacity (FRC) or tapered flow resistive loading (initiated from RV) would improve inspiratory muscle function over a larger range of lung volumes in comparison with the standard protocol. METHODS: 48 healthy volunteers (42% male, age: 48 ± 9 years, PImax: 110 ± 28%pred, [mean ± SD]) were randomly assigned to perform three daily IMT sessions of pressure threshold loading (either initiated from RV or from FRC) or tapered flow resistive loading (initiated from RV) for 4 weeks. Sessions consisted of 30 breaths against the highest tolerable load. Before and after the training period, PImax was measured at RV, FRC, and midway between FRC and total lung capacity (1/2 IC). V̇Imax was measured at the same lung volumes against a range of external threshold loads. RESULTS: While PImax increased significantly at RV and at FRC in the group performing the standard training protocol (pressure threshold loading from RV), it increased significantly at all lung volumes in the two other training groups (all p < 0.05). No significant changes in V̇Imax were observed in the group performing the standard protocol. Increases of V̇Imax were significantly larger at all lung volumes after tapered flow resistive loading, and at higher lung volumes (i.e., FRC and 1/2 IC) after pressure threshold loading from FRC in comparison with the standard protocol (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Only training with tapered flow resistive loading and pressure threshold loading from functional residual capacity resulted in consistent improvements in respiratory muscle function at higher lung volumes, whereas improvements after the standard protocol (pressure threshold loading from residual volume) were restricted to gains in PImax at lower lung volumes. Further research is warranted to investigate whether these results can be confirmed in larger samples of both healthy subjects and patients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7744620/ /pubmed/33343384 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.576595 Text en Copyright © 2020 Van Hollebeke, Gosselink and Langer. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
Van Hollebeke, Marine
Gosselink, Rik
Langer, Daniel
Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title_full Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title_fullStr Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title_full_unstemmed Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title_short Training Specificity of Inspiratory Muscle Training Methods: A Randomized Trial
title_sort training specificity of inspiratory muscle training methods: a randomized trial
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343384
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.576595
work_keys_str_mv AT vanhollebekemarine trainingspecificityofinspiratorymuscletrainingmethodsarandomizedtrial
AT gosselinkrik trainingspecificityofinspiratorymuscletrainingmethodsarandomizedtrial
AT langerdaniel trainingspecificityofinspiratorymuscletrainingmethodsarandomizedtrial