Series 1 : 24 subjects (16-24yrs) These subjects completed a standard graded bicycle ergometer test from rest to exhaustion. Three min. at each 50 watt load and from 5 to 7 levels. They breathed through a modified Hans Rudolph mask. Attached to both the Nasal port and the Oral port were Aerosport TEEM 100 Pneumotack heads for flow and metabolic calculations. This allowed for independent measurements of both oral and nasal contibution to the work. They completed the protocol on three separate occasions : control ( no nasal strip), Placebo ( Nasal strip with no elastic device), Breathe Right Nasal Strip. Series II : 12 EIA subjects (12-26 yrs) These subjects completed a 6 min treadmill run at 80% max once on placebo and once with Breathe Right Strip. No mask was worn. Pulmonary function analysis was performed : three times at rest, immediately after exercise, and at 3,6,9,12,15 mins. of recovery. % fall index was calculated using FEV1 and MEF50. For both series repeated measures ANOVA was used to indentify significance at the (.05) level between conditions.

SERIES I : c- control, P- Placebo, B- Breathe Right (* sig at .05)

         Total Ventilation     % Oral Vent     % Nasal Vent
         
         C   P   B             C   P   B       C   P   B
70%max
Mean    31  32   33           82  81  77      18  19  23         

SE     2.0  2.9  1.6         9.8  8.1 8.4    4.7  1.6  1.9  

80%max
Mean    46  54   48           83  81   72*    17  19  28*

SE     2.9  4.4  2.4         8.6  8.4  7.4    3.6  1.8  2.0 

The data show that no overall effect on ventilation nor VO2 was identified for Breathe Right trials. This finding and other pilot performance work we have completed would suggest that the nasal strips have no effect on exercise performance in healthy individuals. There is however a shift toward a greater % nasal contribution to both the ventilation and VO2 across work intensities, becoming significant at moderate to heavy loads. From a strictly mechanical viewpoint this shift would probalbly increase the work of breathing but may provide a slightly higher alveolar ventilation for the same total ventilation. Although this shift would be of minor importance in normal subjects, because air conditioning is a modifing factor for EIA patients, even a small improvement here may reduce their response. Increased conditioning of inspired air as well as forced nasal ventilation has been shown to improve EIA exercise tolerance. A small group of our EIA patients did improve their exercise response. This work is currently being expanded to include a larger group of EIA subjects. In terms of compliance during free exercise trials our children consider it an "in thing to do" wearing the nasal strip like pro atheletes, while use of an inhaler is embarrassing to some.

Butler J. The work of breathing through the nose. Clin Sci 19:55-62,1960.

Strohl KP., et al. The nasal response to exercise and exercise induced bronchoconstriction in normal and asthmatic subjects. Thorax 43:890-5,1988.

Wilson BA., O. Bar-Or, and LG. Seed. Effects of humid air breathing during arm or treadmill exercise on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and refractoriness. Am Rev Respir Dis 142:349-52,1990.