Nasal breathing while walking? Is this a thing?

Courtscan2

So I've just hired a personal trainer, and had done quite a bit of research to make sure I was getting someone who actually knows his stuff, and isn't just going to give me some cookie cutter program....but he has just told me something that sounds like utter nonsense, and I trust him less now, and just want to know if I'm way off the mark. I take evening walks with 1 of my kids most nights (I alternate children to make it fair). We walk very briskly for about 50 minutes. He told me he wants me to continue doing this, but to breathe nasally the whole time - so if I can't breathe nasally I need to slow down, as I will lose more fat this way (?!?!). Is this as big a load of poop as I assume? Surely more speed = more energy expended = more fat loss, ultimately? Is this that old "stay in the fat burning zone"nonsense, or is there actually a reason for this? I didn't want to blatantly question him, as I'm still pretending to trust his guidance at the moment. Everything else he has told me has been bang on.

cgvet37

I have never heard of this, but a little googling, and I saw multiple sources stating nose breathing burns more calories. I sounds BS to me, but I'm not a sports scientist.

dewd2

Assuming you are breathing deeply into your stomach (not just your chest) I don't believe it makes much difference. Sometimes coaches/trainers will suggest this to slow your breath and make it deeper. I never breathe through my nose (I'm a decent long distance runner) and it hasn't caused me any issues. To be transparent, my nose was broken when I was a kid and is not completely straight (deviated septum) so it may be that I don't use my nose because of this. YMMV

Chieflrg

I'm not following this line of thinking into anything relative to burning fat. I can see possibly if we are talking training for athletes being more efficient but I really don't think it will impact fat loss to a extent that we use it as a tool. I reserve the notion that I'm strictly going by gut here and haven't read current evidence via meta analysis or similar.

If you are concerned I was simply ask for reasoning and evidence so you can be on the same page as that is very important if you are to buy into trainer's programming.

I as a coach/trainer prefer my athletes to question what and why we are doing certain things. One, it gives some insight into my style of training. Two, there might be something I'm overlooking and should check myself to make sure my plans are appropriate for the athlete. Evidence changes and researching can open the window a little for fresh air.

Courtscan2

Chieflrg wrote: »

I'm not following this line of thinking into anything relative to burning fat. I can see possibly if we are talking training for athletes being more efficient but I really don't think it will impact fat loss to a extent that we use it as a tool. I reserve the notion that I'm strictly going by gut here and haven't read current evidence via meta analysis or similar.

If you are concerned I was simply ask for reasoning and evidence so you can be on the same page as that is very important if you are to buy into trainer's programming.

I as a coach/trainer prefer my athletes to question what and why we are doing certain things. One, it gives some insight into my style of training. Two, there might be something I'm overlooking and should check myself to make sure my plans are appropriate for the athlete. Evidence changes and researching can open the window a little for fresh air.

You're right, I will just ask him. I have a history of being too polite when unnecessary, and transparency in any relationship is important. I hired him for his strength training experience, his opinion on my walks is sort of neither here nor there - this just made me go whaaaaaaaat?

heybales

He's associated less intense exercise that will indeed be a higher % of the energy source as fat - with nasal breathing being a way of slowing you down since most won't be able to go very intense that way getting less oxygen.

I had long distance coach that discussed that years ago as way to slow us down to train the base aerobic system more. Only on breathing in though - he knew the dangers of snot rockets in groups.
The mere fact you are walking probably means that is occurring no matter how you breath though. So.....

And while you may burn bigger % of calories from fat - almost always the total calories of fat burned is less then if you just went faster and burned smaller % from fat.

Now - did you tell him you had aspirations for 10K's or longer running races?
And he's thinking you are going to appreciate having a base aerobic system that is excellent at burning fat.
Which means you spare more of your glycogen stores to make it through an endurance event.
Eventually the process is you'll speed back up even with that restriction of breathing in place, because you've improved your aerobic system so well.

Never heard of that method of obtaining that result - but it could work I suppose.

NorthCascades

I had a good doctor who once said something about leaky gut syndrome. I know that isn't a real thing. It's also not her area of expertise, or what I saw her for (tendinitis). Everybody has some kind of flakey belief, probably. If everything else is bang on, just ignore this one but give the guy a strike. Assuming you benefit otherwise from him.

Fat loss comes from burning more calories than you eat. Walking further burns more calories. If you only have 50 minutes to walk, then going at your brisk pace burns more calories than going slowly.

sijomial

The amount of body fat burned is related to your calorie deficit over an extended period of time - not the mix of fuel substrates used in exercise. Yes the proportion of fat used would be slightly higher with lower intensity but you would also cover less distance in the same time and burn less calories.

If you are walking for fitness and calorie burns then his advice is counter-productive.

I would question him, he may have some reasoning that isn't apparent. It also establishes that you think about his advice rather than blindly following it. You are paying him so get the relationship that works best for you.
If client #1 states they want to burn belly fat and client #2 starts talking about the Borg scale rating of perceived exertion they are going to explain things very differently each client.

I have heard knowledable PTs dumb down advice to a level that actually makes no sense but achieves the purpose of getting the customer to adhere to the training plan. PTs do encounter a lot of clients that have zero knowledge except some pop culture myths picked up from locker rooms and magazines.....

BrianSharpe

It sounds like he's bought into the "fat burning zone" nonsense. It's true that less intense exercise burns more fat as fuel relative to carbohydrates but the fuel source has absolutely nothing to do with fat loss (it is important if your goal is to become an endurance athlete, as a fuel source most people have a lot more calories available from fat than carbohydrates / glycogen).

I would seriously reconsider keeping someone like that on.

SuzySunshine99

I try to breathe only out my nose when I exercise outside...but mostly because it lessens the likelihood of inhaling a bug.

sijomial

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

I try to breathe only out my nose when I exercise outside...but mostly because it lessens the likelihood of inhaling a bug.

But bugs are a good source of protein....

SuzySunshine99

sijomial wrote: »

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

I try to breathe only out my nose when I exercise outside...but mostly because it lessens the likelihood of inhaling a bug.

But bugs are a good source of protein....

But hard to track unless you weigh them first...

Iwantahealthierme30

If you breathe through your nose it filters the air that you're breathing. In this time of covid, I would take his advice. For health, not necessarily for fat loss.

Diatonic12

The leaky gut. It our guts were truly leaking we'd croak from sepsis. We're not 'toxed unless your liver and kidneys are kaput, no detox required. There are quacks and licensed medical professionals and it takes wisdom to know the difference. If it sounds too good to be true it will be financially profitable to keep dispensing it.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

Well, since the total calorie burn is the rate times the time, you can increase either to get a higher total. In general, it's easier to increase the time than the rate. What I mean is that once you have basic fitness for walking, running, cycling, or whatever, you will have a hard time increasing your level of activity by even 10%. But it is easy to go for 10% longer. In fact, you can probably go 2x longer, particularly if you slightly reduce your pace.

It is common among runners to do shorter harder runs interspersed with longer slower ones. The longer slower ones always burn more calories overall (and help to build endurance).

For most people, breathing through you nose is slightly harder than through your nose and mouth. This will make the workout a bit harder. (Some people won't be able to do it at all due to limited flow through their nose.)

The last time I heard it mentioned, it was in the context of a basketball drill, which was to run around the court several times holding a basketball over your head while breathing only through your nose. The idea there was that it was just plain harder, so

BahstenB10

heybales wrote: »

He's associated less intense exercise that will indeed be a higher % of the energy source as fat - with nasal breathing being a way of slowing you down since most won't be able to go very intense that way getting less oxygen.

I had long distance coach that discussed that years ago as way to slow us down to train the base aerobic system more. Only on breathing in though - he knew the dangers of snot rockets in groups.
The mere fact you are walking probably means that is occurring no matter how you breath though. So.....

And while you may burn bigger % of calories from fat - almost always the total calories of fat burned is less then if you just went faster and burned smaller % from fat.

Now - did you tell him you had aspirations for 10K's or longer running races?
And he's thinking you are going to appreciate having a base aerobic system that is excellent at burning fat.
Which means you spare more of your glycogen stores to make it through an endurance event.
Eventually the process is you'll speed back up even with that restriction of breathing in place, because you've improved your aerobic system so well.

Never heard of that method of obtaining that result - but it could work I suppose.

THIS. In the nose out the mouth for long distance running for me. This has done wonders for me.
I can't remember the reason why sadly, but it was the way my cross country coach taught me in high school (every 3rd step you exhale.)

lx1x

Iwantahealthierme30 wrote: »

If you breathe through your nose it filters the air that you're breathing. In this time of covid, I would take his advice. For health, not necessarily for fat loss.

Part true.. filter to certain degree... Not the virus.

.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/mechanics-respiration/

Diatonic12

Part true.. filter to certain degree... Not the virus.

Correct. This is why wearing a mask below your nose is mostly useless. There are so many pesky tourists doing that in my neck of the woods.

J72FIT

I am a believer that nasal breathing is better for you then mouth breathing. That said, better fat loss? Not so much, and if it did have an effect, probably minimally at best...

Iwantahealthierme30

Did I say I was wearing a mask below my nose...?

lx1x

Iwantahealthierme30 wrote: »

Did I say I was wearing a mask below my nose...?

She didn't...nobody did.. she was talking in general.. seen few that do it.

westrich20940

There is a persisting 'myth' about aerobic vs. anaerobic activity and what burns more fat. The fact is that you can't really target burning fat only - reliably. If you keep your heart rate lower, for example --- the body may be more likely to pull energy from fat, as opposed to muscle mass...but honestly I don't think there's sufficient scientific evidence to show that this is actually true. That's why it is still a 'debate'.

So, he clearly believes this and is telling you to make sure that your activity level isn't so intense that it causes you to have to breath through your mouth. Plenty of runners also subscribe to this ("If you can't have a conversation while you're working out, you're working out too hard")....but really it's all about overall calories burned. That's it. Your body will take energy from what's available which eventually will be fat and your will lose fat --- you will also lose muscle mass as well - that's why it's also important to incorporate some weighted exercises (even just body weight exercises) to maintain muscle mass or incorporate a lifting program once you reach a target weight to increase your muscle mass. It makes you healthier all around.

You can take it or leave it...but I don't necessarily think it makes him a 'quack' to say it --- so as long as you don't notice any other red flags and your workouts seem good...I don't think you need to drop him just yet, haha.

heybales

westrich20940 wrote: »

There is a persisting 'myth' about aerobic vs. anaerobic activity and what burns more fat. The fact is that you can't really target burning fat only - reliably. If you keep your heart rate lower, for example --- the body may be more likely to pull energy from fat, as opposed to muscle mass...but honestly I don't think there's sufficient scientific evidence to show that this is actually true. That's why it is still a 'debate'.

There's no debate on that (especially not anaerobic, need to look up the meaning and what it allows) - the lower the level of intensity the bigger % fat is burned.
The higher the intensity up to anaerobic - the more it starts involving glycogen as bigger and bigger %.

Overall amount of fat grams or calories do not follow that % though, and really no debate on that either.
Plenty of muscle core samples plus VO2 tests to prove that out - even on personal level now.

There is continuing confusion though by those that don't know, stating it incorrectly and keeping the myth of fat-burning zone alive.

Oh - the energy source isn't a choice between fat and muscle mass.
Perhaps you meant carbs there.

ExistingFish

J72FIT wrote: »

I am a believer that nasal breathing is better for you then mouth breathing. That said, better fat loss? Not so much, and if it did have an effect, probably minimally at best...

Me too. The nose is designed to filter allergens and warm the air to the appropriate temperature, when you bipass it with your mouth it dries the mouth and sucks in all the pollens.

That said I don't think it is that big of a deal.