Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):295-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

Original articles  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):295-9

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

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


PDF


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.

top of page