Effects of the Turbine™ on Ventilatory and Sensory Responses to Incremental Cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Turbine™ is a nasal dilator marketed to athletes to increase airflow, which may serve to reduce dyspnea and improve exercise performance, presumably via reductions in the work of breathing (WOB). However, the unpublished data supporting these claims were collected in individuals at rest that were exclusively nasal breathing. These data are not indicative of how the device influences breathing during exercise at higher ventilations when a larger proportion of breathing is through the mouth. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to empirically test the efficacy of the Turbine™ during exercise. We hypothesized that the Turbine™ would modestly reduce the WOB at rest and very low exercise intensities but would have no effect on the WOB at moderate to high exercise intensities. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover study in young, healthy individuals (7M:1F; age = 27 ± 5 yr) with normal lung function. Each participant performed two incremental cycle exercise tests to exhaustion with the Turbine™ device or under a sham control condition. For the sham control condition, participants were told they were breathing a low-density gas to reduce the WOB, but they were actually breathing room air. The WOB was determined through the integration of ensemble averaged esophageal pressure-volume loops. Standard cardiorespiratory measures were recorded using a commercially available metabolic cart. Dyspnea was assessed throughout exercise using the 0-10 Borg scale. RESULTS: Peak V˙O2 and work rate were not different between conditions (P = 0.70 and P = 0.35, respectively). In addition, there was no interaction or main effect of condition on dyspnea, ventilation, or WOB throughout the exercise (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the Turbine™ does not reduce the WOB and has no effect on dyspnea or exercise capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".