PainSci summary of Enright 2011?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★☆☆3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
Since we know that inspiratory muscle training can improve inspiratory muscle function, lung volume, lung capacity, and work capacity, what level of intensity will “do the trick”? This was a randomized and controlled trial — good science stuff — with three groups, each group training at a different level. The results suggest that high intensity is better than low intensity: “High-intensity IMT set at 80% of maximal effort resulted in increased MIP and SMIP, lung volumes, work capacity, and power output in individuals who were healthy, whereas IMT at 60% of maximal effort increased work capacity and power output only. Inspiratory muscle training intensities lower than 40% of maximal effort do not translate into quantitative functional outcomes.”
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been shown to improve inspiratory muscle function, lung volumes (vital capacity [VC] and total lung capacity [TLC]), work capacity, and power output in people who are healthy; however no data exist that demonstrate the effect of varying intensities of IMT to produce these outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of IMT at varying intensities on inspiratory muscle function, VC, TLC, work capacity, and power output in people who are healthy. Design This was a randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The study was conducted in a clinical laboratory.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty people who were healthy (mean age=21.7 years) were randomly assigned to 4 groups of 10 individuals.
INTERVENTIONS: Three of the groups completed an 8-week program of IMT set at 80%, 60%, and 40% of sustained maximum inspiratory effort. Training was performed 3 days per week, with 24 hours separating training sessions. A control group did not participate in any form of training. Measurements Baseline and posttraining measurements of body composition, VC, TLC, inspiratory muscle function (including maximum inspiratory pressure [MIP] and sustained maximum inspiratory pressure [SMIP]), work capacity (minutes of exercise), and power output were obtained.
RESULTS: The participants in the 80%, 60%, and 40% training groups demonstrated significant increases in MIP and SMIP, whereas those in the 80% and 60% training groups had increased work capacity and power output. Only the 80% group improved their VC and TLC. The control group demonstrated no change in any outcome measures.
LIMITATIONS: This study may have been underpowered to demonstrate improved work capacity and power output in individuals who trained at 40% of sustained maximum inspiratory effort.
CONCLUSION: High-intensity IMT set at 80% of maximal effort resulted in increased MIP and SMIP, lung volumes, work capacity, and power output in individuals who were healthy, whereas IMT at 60% of maximal effort increased work capacity and power output only. Inspiratory muscle training intensities lower than 40% of maximal effort do not translate into quantitative functional outcomes.
- “Effects of High-Intensity Inspiratory Muscle Training Following a Near-Fatal Gunshot Wound,” Kylie Hill, Kevin R Gain, Sean W McKay, Christine Nathan, and Eli Gabbay, Physical Therapy, 2011.
- “Inspiratory muscle training: integrative review,” Cynthia A Padula and Evelyn Yeaw, Research & Theory For Nursing Practice, 2006.
These three articles on PainScience.com cite Enright 2011 as a source:
- PS The Art of Bioenergetic Breathing — A potent tool for personal growth and transformation by breathing quickly and deeply
- PS The Respiration Connection — How dysfunctional breathing might be a root cause of a variety of common upper body pain problems and injuries
- PS When To Worry About Shortness of Breath … and When Not To — Three minor causes of a scary symptom that might be treatable
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.