Introduction: The respiratory system plays a key role in maintaining vital human processes and together with the cardiovascular and central nervous systems is responsible for all processes related to oxygenation and hemodynamics. It is also affected by the movement of the body, especially if the movement is periodic. We can interfere breathing, by forcing respiratory frequency or by using breathing patterns, with which we change the pressure in breathing airways. The effects of different modulated breathing patterns on the physiological response of the body during exercise are not well researched. Purpose: The aim of this study was to establish how the use of a certain breathing pattern during medium-intensity exercise on a cycloergometer affects the physiological responses of the body and what is the subjective perception of that effort. Methods: The study included 26 young healthy subjects. After basic measurements, we performed a research protocol (5 min rest, 5 min cycling ergometer and 10 min rest), which was repeated three times, each time using a randomly selected breathing pattern: spontaneous breathing, exhalation with open mouth and exhalation with pursed mouth. We did not impose respiratory rates. With the Cosmed Quark CPET system, we monitored heart rate, tidal volume, respiratory rate, oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, and derived parameters. Afterwards, participants assesed their perception of exertion. Values p<0.05 were considered for statistical differences. Results: Analysis showed the entrainment of breathing and cycling in all three breathing patterns. When exhaling with resistance, we also found the lowest oxygen consumption at a locomotor-respiratory coupling of 1:3. We found a statistically significantly lower heart rate during exercise and lower oxygen deficit after exercise in modulated breathing patterns. For the other measured parameters, no significant changes during and after exertion were observed. The least difficult breathing pattern to perform was spontaneous. Discussion and conclusion: Our results indicate beneficial effects of breathing with increased airway resistance, but the load intensity was too low to demonstrate statistically significant differences. The findings are encouraging for further research. Some of the limitations of the present study must be eliminated; first, we would measure the maximum aerobic capacity of the subjects before the start of the study, based on which we would then determine the individual submaximal load. The research would be extended to different patient populations.
|
