## 3 Results  
Adherence to the program was 82% for the RMTgroup and 86% for the CPAPgroup. For the RMTgroup, adherence was recorded by connection and duration of use. For the CPAPgroup adherence was recorded using device data. All participants responded to each video scroll and reported no problems with adherence to the intervention program. The results, before and after the intervention period between the groups, anthropometric characteristics, body composition and pulmonary function test, respiratory muscle strength, and physical fitness tests are presented in Table 1. The results of the cardiopulmonary and hemodynamic parameters during the 30 s StS test are presented in Table 2. Figure 2a-d shows the results of breathing reserve, oxygen breath, ventilation to body surface area ratio, and pulse respiratory quotient before and after the intervention period between the groups. The results showed a statistically significant effect with time F(1.0, 26.0) = 11.78, \(p\) = 0.002. The planned contrast test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the first and second measurements. The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the RMTgroup had changes in V\({}_{\rm E}\)/MV at the end of the test before and after the intervention period (24.3 \(\pm\) 7.8 versus 20.1 \(\pm\) 6.9, \(p\) < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.237 to 6.049, Figure 2a) compared to the CPAPgroup (26.8 \(\pm\) 13.4 versus 26.4 \(\pm\) 14.2, \(p\) = 0.703, 95% CI: \(-\)1.549 to 2.263, Figure 2a). The results of the oxygen breath at the end of test showed a statistically significant effect with time F(1.0, 26.0) = 13.169, \(p\) = 0.001. The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the RMTgroup had changes before and after the intervention period (68.5 \(\pm\) 27.6 versus 80.7 \(\pm\) 30.6, \(p\) = 0.002, 95% CI: 61.194 to 88.035, Figure 2b) compared to the CPAPgroup (66.21 \(\pm\) 19.5 versus 72.6 \(\pm\) 22.1, \(p\) = 0.088, 95% CI: 56.001 to 82.842, Figure 2b). The results of the V\({}_{\rm E}\)/BSA in resting showed a statistically significant effect with time F(1.0, 26.0) = 7.93, \(p\) = 0.035. The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the RMTgroup had changes before and after the intervention period (5.4 \(\pm\) 1.8 versus 4.3 \(\pm\) 1.6, \(p\) = 0.024, 95% CI: 4.080 to 5.699, Figure 2c) compared to the CPAPgroup (5.4 \(\pm\) 2.1 versus 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.2, \(p\) = 0.467, 95% CI: 4.430 to 6.049, Figure 2c). The results of PRQ in resting showed a statistically significant effect with time and groups F(1.0, 26.0) = 32.104, \(p\) < 0.001 (RMTgroup: 5.5 \(\pm\) 2.5 versus 7.0 \(\pm\) 2.3, \(p\) < 0.001, 95% CI: 5.281 to 7.305; CPAPgroup: 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.3  
Figure 2: Results before and after the intervention period between groups in three stages of the 30 s Sit-to-Stand: (**a**) breathing reserve \(\left(\frac{\text{ventilation (VEL/min)}}{\text{maximal voluntary ventilation (MVVL/min)}}\right)\), (**b**) oxygen breath, (**c**) ratio between ventilation (V\({}_{\rm E}\), L/min) and body surface area (BSA, m\({}^{2}\)), (**d**) and pulse respiration quotient. Abbreviations: \(\square\) Baseline RMTgroup; \(\square\) After 4-week RMTgroup; \(\diamond\) Baseline CPAPgroup; \(\diamond\) After 4-week CPAPgroup. \(\diamond\)\(\diamond\) After 4-week CPAPgroup. \(\#\)\(p\) < 0.001, \({}^{*}\)\(p\) < 0.05 between baseline and after 4-week, \({}^{*}\)\(p\) < 0.001, \(\ddagger\)\(p\) < 0.05 between groups. versus 4.5 \(\pm\) 1.0, \(p\) = 0.011, 95% CI: 3.831 to 5.855, Figure 2d), at the end of test in time F(1.0, 26.0) = 18.169, \(p\) < 0.001 (RMTgroup: 4.9 \(\pm\) 1.6 versus 5.9 \(\pm\) 1.6, \(p\) = 0.001, 95% CI: 4.729 to 6.085; CPAPgroup: 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 versus 4.9 \(\pm\) 1.0, \(p\) = 0.020, 95% CI: 3.911 to 5.268, Figure 2d), and at the first minute of recovery in time and groups F(1.0, 26.0) = 18.893, \(p\) < 0.001 (RMTgroup: 4.7 \(\pm\) 1.8 versus 5.9 \(\pm\) 1.8, \(p\) < 0.001, 95% CI: 4.566 to 6.098; CPAPgroup: 4.5 \(\pm\) 1.2 versus 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.1, \(p\) = 0.136, 95% CI:3.516 to 5.048, Figure 2d).