Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
Original articles EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):295-9
Influence of changes in nasal ventilation on estimated workload during submaximal field running
Bourdin M., Sallet P., Dufour A.-B. *, Lacour J.-R.
From the Laboratoire de Physiologie de l’Exercice GIP Exercice, Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud Oullins Cedex, France
*Laboratoire de Biométrie, Génétique et Biologie des Populations, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
Background. Breathe Right® (BR) external nasal dilator have become increasingly popular over the past few years, however, the physiological basis for using BR remains unclear. We have examined whether alteration in nasal ventilation would influence the metabolic cost of submaximal running.
Methods. Metabolic cost was estimated in 10 male endurance triathletes by measuring heart rate (HR) and exercise perception by measuring the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during submaximal field running. The protocol consisted of 5 min of running at 80% of their maximal aerobic velocity (MAVf, previously determined under field conditions) for three randomised experimental conditions, separated by a 10 min rest. The conditions were normal nasal ventilation (N), no nasal ventilation (using a nose clip) (NC) and with a BR.
Results. Running with the BR or with NC did not significantly influence HR (N: 173±7, BR: 173±8, NC: 172±7 beat·min-1; F=0.01, p=0.99) or RPE (N: 12.1±1.7, BR: 11.8±1.9, NC: 13.2±0.8; F=1.88, p=0.18). We conclude that alteration in nasal ventilation produced by using BR or NC do not influence HR or RPE in a group of triathletes running 5 min at 80% of MAVf.
Conclusions. The present study tended to demonstrate that both nasal ventilation would not influence the total metabolic cost, and that the BR device is not advantageous during high intensity exercise.