In a crossover study of 19 healthy adults cycling for 60 minutes at a self-selected low intensity, nasal-only breathing lowered total ventilation and breathing frequency compared with unrestricted oro-nasal breathing, with no difference in rated effort and marginally higher discomfort. In a second crossover study comparing exclusively nasal with exclusively oral breathing during 5 minutes of moderate cycling, nasal breathing produced slower, deeper breathing in all groups, including young and older healthy adults. Whether these acute changes affect fitness or health over time has not been studied.
Who this is about
healthy adults during low- to moderate-intensity cycling
Details and sources
Practical note
Graded low: two small single-session crossover studies (19 healthy adults in one; 27 healthy controls alongside cardiac patients in the other) measuring acute physiological markers, downgraded for imprecision and for indirectness to longer-term outcomes. The studies differed in comparator (oro-nasal versus exclusively oral breathing) and duration (60 versus 5 minutes), so only the shared direction, slower breathing with nasal-only breathing, is drawn from both.
Vegan note
No diet-specific angle; the practice involves no food or supplement.
Safety note
Discomfort was rated marginally higher with nasal-only breathing in one study, and in the other two older healthy participants with a blocked nose had to stop the nasal-breathing trial after 3 minutes.
Sources
- “However, total ventilation, carbon dioxide release, oxygen uptake and breathing frequency were notably lower during nasal-only breathing.” (Discussion, first paragraph) Rappelt L, Held S, Wiedenmann T, Deutsch JP, Hochstrate J, Wicker P, Donath L. 2023. Frontiers in Physiology. Restricted nasal-only breathing during self-selected low intensity training does not affect training intensity distribution. CC BY; credit Rappelt et al., Frontiers in Physiology 2023
- “Nasal breathing resulted in a pattern of slower and deeper breathing and a reduced ventilation to carbon dioxide production in all groups (lower panels).” (Results, figure legend) Eser P, Calamai P, Kalberer A, Stuetz L, Huber S, Kaesermann D, Guler S, Wilhelm M. 2024. Frontiers in Physiology. Improved exercise ventilatory efficiency with nasal compared to oral breathing in cardiac patients. CC BY; credit Eser et al., Frontiers in Physiology 2024
- “Interestingly, even though discomfort was rated marginally higher during cycling with nasal-only breathing, ratings of perceived effort did not differ between both conditions.” (Discussion, first paragraph) Rappelt L, Held S, Wiedenmann T, Deutsch JP, Hochstrate J, Wicker P, Donath L. 2023. Frontiers in Physiology. Restricted nasal-only breathing during self-selected low intensity training does not affect training intensity distribution. CC BY; credit Rappelt et al., Frontiers in Physiology 2023
- “Two old healthy controls had a blocked nose and had to stop the nasal trial after 3 min, leaving data from 12 old healthy controls in the analyses.” (Results, participants) Eser P, Calamai P, Kalberer A, Stuetz L, Huber S, Kaesermann D, Guler S, Wilhelm M. 2024. Frontiers in Physiology. Improved exercise ventilatory efficiency with nasal compared to oral breathing in cardiac patients. CC BY; credit Eser et al., Frontiers in Physiology 2024