Locomotor–Respiratory Entrainment upon Phonated Compared to Spontaneous Breathing during Submaximal Exercise

Recently, increased attention to breathing techniques during exercise has addressed the need for more in-depth study of the ergogenic effects of breathing manipulation. The physiological effects of phonation, as a potential breathing tool, have not yet been studied. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the respiratory, metabolic and hemodynamic responses of phonated exhalation and its impact on locomotor–respiratory entrainment in young healthy adults during moderate exercise. Twenty-six young, healthy participants were subjected to peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements and a moderate steady cycling protocol based on three different breathing patterns (BrP): spontaneous breathing (BrP1), phonated breathing pronouncing “h” (BrP2) and phonated breathing pronouncing “ss” (BrP3). The heart rate, arterial blood pressure, oxygen consumption, CO(2) production, respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), respiratory exchange ratio and ventilatory equivalents for both important respiratory gasses (eqO(2) and eqCO(2)) were measured (Cosmed, Italy) simultaneously during a short period of moderate stationary cycling at a predefined cadence. To evaluate the psychological outcomes, the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded after each cycling protocol. The locomotor–respiratory frequency coupling was calculated at each BrP, and dominant coupling was determined. Phonation gradually decreased the PEF (388 ± 54 L/min at BrP2 and 234 ± 54 L/min at BrP3 compared to 455 ± 42 L/min upon spontaneous breathing) and affected the RR (18.8 ± 5.0 min(−1) at BrP2 compared to 22.6 ± 5.5 min(−1) at BrP1 and 21.3 ± 7.2 min(−1) at BrP3), VT (2.33 ± 0.53 L at BrP2 compared to 1.86 ± 0.46 L at BrP1 and 2.00 ± 0.45 L at BrP3), dominant locomotor–respiratory coupling (1:4 at BrP2 compared to 1:3 at BrP1 and BrP2) and RPE (10.27 ± 2.00 at BrP1 compared to 11.95 ± 1.79 at BrP1 and 11.95 ± 1.01 at BrP3) but not any other respiratory, metabolic or hemodynamic measures of the healthy adults during moderate cycling. The ventilatory efficiency was shown to improve upon dominant locomotor–respiratory coupling, regardless of BrP (eqO(2) = 21.8 ± 2.2 and eqCO(2) = 24.0 ± 1.9), compared to the other entrainment coupling regimes (25.3 ± 1.9, 27.3 ± 1.7) and no entrainment (24.8 ± 1.5, 26.5 ± 1.3), respectively. No interaction between phonated breathing and entrainment was observed during moderate cycling. We showed, for the first time, that phonation can be used as a simple tool to manipulate expiratory flow. Furthermore, our results indicated that in young healthy adults, entrainment, rather than expiratory resistance, preferentially affected ergogenic enhancement upon moderate stationary cycling. It can only be speculated that phonation would be a good strategy to increase exercise tolerance among COPD patients or to boost the respiratory efficiency of healthy people at higher exercise loads.