NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? This review focuses on sex-based differences in the anatomy of the respiratory system, which manifest in mechanical ventilatory constraints and potentially alter the integrative response to exercise. What advances does it highlight? Recent evidence indicates that women have smaller conducting airways than men, even when matched for lung size. Consequently, women are more likely to experience mechanical ventilatory constraints to exercise hyperpnoea. Furthermore, at a given ventilation, women have a higher work and oxygen cost of breathing, both of which may lead to differences in the whole-body integrative response to dynamic exercise. Our understanding of the human ventilatory response to exercise is largely based on a historical body of literature focused primarily on male rather than female research subjects. In recent years, important sex-based differences in the anatomy of the human respiratory system have been identified; for a given lung size, women appear to have smaller-diameter conducting airways than men. The presence of such inherent differences in the tracheobronchial tree greatly affects the mechanics of airflow generation, especially during conditions of high ventilation rates, such as exercise. Data from a growing number of studies suggest that women may be more susceptible to respiratory system limitations during exercise than their male counterparts. Specifically, women are more likely to experience expiratory flow limitation and exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia and have a higher metabolic cost of breathing for a given ventilation. Collectively, the available evidence suggests that sex differences in the ventilatory response to exercise are present and may have important ramifications for the integrated response to exercise; however, several fundamental questions remain unanswered.
NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? This review focuses on sex-based differences in the anatomy of the respiratory system, which manifest in mechanical ventilatory constraints and potentially alter the integrative response to exercise. What advances does it highlight? Recent evidence indicates that women have smaller conducting airways than men, even when matched for lung size. Consequently, women are more likely to experience mechanical ventilatory constraints to exercise hyperpnoea. Furthermore, at a given ventilation, women have a higher work and oxygen cost of breathing, both of which may lead to differences in the whole-body integrative response to dynamic exercise. Our understanding of the human ventilatory response to exercise is largely based on a historical body of literature focused primarily on male rather than female research subjects. In recent years, important sex-based differences in the anatomy of the human respiratory system have been identified; for a given lung size, women appear to have smaller-diameter conducting airways than men. The presence of such inherent differences in the tracheobronchial tree greatly affects the mechanics of airflow generation, especially during conditions of high ventilation rates, such as exercise. Data from a growing number of studies suggest that women may be more susceptible to respiratory system limitations during exercise than their male counterparts. Specifically, women are more likely to experience expiratory flow limitation and exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia and have a higher metabolic cost of breathing for a given ventilation. Collectively, the available evidence suggests that sex differences in the ventilatory response to exercise are present and may have important ramifications for the integrated response to exercise; however, several fundamental questions remain unanswered.
Authors: Paolo B Dominelli; Juan G Ripoll; Troy J Cross; Sarah E Baker; Chad C Wiggins; Brian T Welch; Michael J Joyner Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Nicholas B Tiller; Kirsty J Elliott-Sale; Beat Knechtle; Patrick B Wilson; Justin D Roberts; Guillaume Y Millet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Maja Jurca; Alban Ramette; Cristian M Dogaru; Myrofora Goutaki; Ben D Spycher; Philipp Latzin; Erol A Gaillard; Claudia E Kuehni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark D DeBoer; Brenda R Phillips; David T Mauger; Joe Zein; Serpil C Erzurum; Anne M Fitzpatrick; Benjamin M Gaston; Ross Myers; Kristie R Ross; James Chmiel; Min Jie Lee; John V Fahy; Michael Peters; Ngoc P Ly; Sally E Wenzel; Merritt L Fajt; Fernando Holguin; Wendy C Moore; Stephen P Peters; Deborah Meyers; Eugene R Bleecker; Mario Castro; Andrea M Coverstone; Leonard B Bacharier; Nizar N Jarjour; Ronald L Sorkness; Sima Ramratnam; Anne-Marie Irani; Elliot Israel; Bruce Levy; Wanda Phipatanakul; Jonathan M Gaffin; W Gerald Teague Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Jisun Yoon; Eun Jin Eom; Jin Tack Kim; Dae Hyun Lim; Woo Kyung Kim; Dae Jin Song; Young Yoo; Dong In Suh; Hey Sung Baek; Meeyong Shin; Ji Won Kwon; Gwang Cheon Jang; Hyeon Jong Yang; Eun Lee; Hwan Soo Kim; Ju Hee Seo; Sung Il Woo; Hyung Young Kim; Youn Ho Shin; Ju Suk Lee; Sungsu Jung; Minkyu Han; Jinho Yu Journal: Allergy Asthma Immunol Res Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 5.764
Authors: Michael D Kennedy; Elisabeth Lenz; Martin Niedermeier; Martin Faulhaber Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390