Dodd D S, Yarom J, Loring S H, Engel L A
Thoracic Medicine Unit, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1988 Dec;65(6):2518-23. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1988.65.6.2518.
In six normal male subjects we compared the O2 cost of resistive breathing (VO2 resp) between equivalent external inspiratory (IRL) and expiratory loads (ERL) studied separately. Each subject performed four pairs of runs matched for tidal volume, breathing frequency, flow rates, lung volume, pressure-time product, and work rate. Basal O2 uptake, measured before and after pairs of loaded runs, was subtracted from that measured during resistive breathing to obtain VO2 resp. For an equivalent load, the VO2 resp during ERL (184 +/- 17 ml O2/min) was nearly twice that obtained during IRL (97 +/- 9 ml O2/min). This twofold difference in efficiency between inspiratory and expiratory resistive breathing may reflect the relatively lower mechanical advantage of the expiratory muscles in overcoming respiratory loads. Variable recruitment of expiratory muscles may explain the large variation of results obtained in studies of respiratory muscle efficiency in normal subjects.
