ArticlePloS one2023
Mental, physical, and phychophysiological responses to FFP2/N95 face mask during HIIT in active women.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Training systems based on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) have experienced great influence in recent years within the context of exercise and sport. This study aims to provide insight on whether the immediate outcomes (e.g., central and peripheral acute responses) may be intensified or attenuated when a HIIT protocol is performed using a FFP2/N95 face mask in active healthy adult women. In other words, it strives to provide new findings relative to the use of face masks as a potential performance enhancing tool. In the current study, the same training session was carried out on two occasions under different conditions (i.e., with FFP2/N95 and without FFP2/N95) in a cross-over experimental design. The following study variables were assessed before and after the HIIT in both sessions: Lactate, cortisol, alpha-amylase, selective attention, countermovement jump (CMJ), and power output. Additionally, central and peripheral Rates of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were assessed before and during the HIIT. This study makes novel contributions to prior research, showing that the use of FFP2/N95 face mask (vs. no mask) yielded higher alpha-amylase, selective attention, and peripheral RPE scores. No significant differences were found for lactate, cortisol, CMJ, and power output. Interestingly, central RPE scores were significantly lower under FFP2/N95 face mask (vs. no mask) condition. The main suggestion in light of these results is that researchers and practitioners should consider potential peripheral and central responses to training stimuli when using FFP2/N95 face masks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.