The only thing we want to beat is records.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337620300275

You are 100% correct. You can get similar benefits with pursed lip breathing (PLB) but this device does it on every breath without years of practice to master the technique. It also does it when you are gasses and need it the most.

Wow... That is a lot of... something. I assume you are affiliated with this product?

I notice that the results of almost every metric measured were not significant, so I do not see how this study can reach any conclusions. But even if they were significant -

I would add that using subjects that were obviously not trained endurance athletes adds a massive amount of error in your TTE measurements for a few reasons -

1 - Very few non-trained athletes know their physical endurance limits are can reach performance close to it - and their perceptions of their limits will vary greatly from person to person

2 - Defining TTE as when self-selected rpm from earlier in the test drops by 10 makes no sense at all. RPM or change thereof is not a measure of exhaustion or work output. Were the subjects told that when their rpm dropped by 10 that was when it was it was deemed a failure or not? Non-trained cyclists will have a very hard time keeping rpm consistent at higher effort levels due to lack of experience. Performance will vary greatly by individual.

3 - Non-trained athletes will begin the test with absolutely no idea what to expect from their performance on the first test due to lack of experience and will greatly adjust how they perform the tests on each subsequent run. The amount of adjustment will depend on the individual.

Where is there a study that shows if someone trains with this device, they will race faster?

Edit - I have known a lot of endurance athletes, from regional amateurs to olympic gold medalists, and trained with them every day for years and years, in the sports of rowing and triathlon. None of them ever used "pursed lip breathing" as a training technique so I am not sure of the accuracy of statements that it has been widely used by endurance athletes.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

But Dr. B posted 17 times on this subject, must know a lot about it!!!

The bias wasn't very well hidden with the use of the inclusive "we" in their posts.

This device does not train your respiratory muscles. It reverses small lung collapse and improves blood oxygen levels via recruitment of airway. Read about PEEP and you will see the physiology which is well understood. This is the first device that allows you to harness this principle while exercising.

I am the physician that invented the product. I, of course, will be biased. That is why I enlisted independent researchers from elite institution to do the research, so that IT would be unbiased. I do not intend to hide any affiliation, but simply respond in a factual manner.

At what point does replying 20 times to a dormant thread just become shameless advertising?

Independent research was performed. The researcher reported all result, including those that were not significant. That is how responsible, independent research is done. The VO2 max improvement was statically significant, as was the TTE.

In response to your points, which are actually quite good.

1. A VTER is the best test to determine the effects on endurance. When this type of test is done in a randomized fashion, the results would not show statistically significant differences if they did not exist. The p value for the change in TTE was less than 0.05.

2. That is the typical way that the test is performed. There is no perfect test, but this is the standard for most exercise physiologist to determine a change in TTE.

3. In the age group for this study, the VO2 max shows that these are trained individuals. The randomization of order would flush out any individual effort effects.

As for a study that shows race results, that is exactly what this does, but in a controlled fashion. There is no perfect test to prove this, however, this is a test that is well accepted and done with scientifically rigorous standards. Moreover, the basis of this device is on a know physiological principle that theoretically should work. The test supports this hypothesis.

Regarding breathing PLB, many high level athletes do this instinctual. There are also plenty of people who train athletes to use the technique.

I believe that answering questions and responding to comments is a good thing. Point, counter point done in a respectful manner contributes to knowledge. I believe it becomes shameless advertising when a response include a web link to buy a product or an encouragement to do so. Neither of those would I do or have I done.

Point. Counterpoint. This I get.

My point is that if it looks like spam, and tastes like spam.......

But agree to disagree. Good luck with your snake oil.

I was looking into this device and wanted to come here for more info. This is the first comment from someone that has actually used the product.. and it seems positive? The science makes sense, it actually mimics a technique some climbers use called "Pursed Lip Breathing" - applying resistance on the exhale to increase oxygen. Seems like a lot of people are quick to call "snake oil" without even trying it? I'll be your huckleberry. Back with my results.

Interesting first post

Thanks? First time user, long time reader. Happy to be here, I think?

That's exactly what I was thinking.

And as a long standing (and long-wheezing) asthmatic i can testify that trying to train whilst not being able to breathe out properly (a) sucks, and (b) hasn't made me world champion yet.

(It has put me in the doctor's waiting room more than I'd like however).