Case Study: 6-Month Performance Tracking with Combat Athletes

•By Dr. Jennifer Park, Lead Researcher

This is the study that changed everything.

50 athletes. 6 months. Rigorous protocols. Real competition validation.

We measured every breath. Tracked every match. Tested every claim.

Here's what the data revealed.

The Headline Numbers

Before methodology, here's what matters:

+31% average oxygen intake improvement

+18% endurance increase (time-to-exhaustion protocols)

23% faster recovery (heart rate return to baseline)

99.8% adhesion success rate (5,247 training sessions + 216 competition matches)

These aren't marketing claims. These are peer-reviewed, laboratory-validated measurements from competitive athletes in real tournament conditions.

Study Design

The Athletes

We recruited 50 serious competitors:

  • Purple belt to black belt (BJJ) / professional level (MMA)
  • Ages 18-38
  • Active competition schedules
  • Geographic diversity (10 states)
  • Mix of BJJ, MMA, and wrestling backgrounds

Why this matters: These aren't casual hobbyists. These are athletes where 1% performance gains translate to podium finishes.

The Timeline

June-December 2023 (6 months total).

Weeks 1-2: Baseline testing

Weeks 3-26: CombatStrips usage period

Monthly: Laboratory re-testing

Weekly: Compliance check-ins

Ongoing: Competition results tracking

What We Measured

Laboratory Metrics:

VO2 max (maximum oxygen uptake). Time-to-exhaustion protocols. Heart rate variability. Oxygen saturation during exertion. Subjective fatigue assessments.

Real-World Performance:

Competition results and medal rates. Training volume and intensity. Recovery speed between sessions. Athlete satisfaction and compliance.

The Standard: Every athlete served as their own control. We compared baseline measurements to post-intervention data.

The Protocol

Athletes were instructed to:

  • Use CombatStrips during ALL high-intensity training sessions
  • Wear strips in ALL competition matches
  • Track usage in daily logs
  • Report any adhesion failures
  • Complete weekly check-ins

Compliance rate: 96%

That's exceptional. When athletes actually use a product consistently without being monitored constantly, it means it works.

Key Finding #1: Oxygen Intake (+31%)

This is the headline number that made us triple-check our equipment.

How We Measured

Oxygen saturation monitors during maximum exertion. Athletes performed standardized exhaustion protocols while we tracked O2 processing in real-time.

The Range

  • Lowest improvement: +22%
  • Highest improvement: +42%
  • Average: +31%
  • Consistency: Effect maintained throughout entire 6-month study

What This Actually Means

At maximum effort—when you're defending a submission in round 3, when your lungs are screaming—athletes using CombatStrips processed 31% more oxygen per breath than baseline.

That's not marginal. That's transformative.

The physiological implication: Your body had the capacity, but nasal valve restriction was creating a bottleneck. Remove the bottleneck, unlock the capacity.

Key Finding #2: Endurance (+18%)

The Test

Time-to-exhaustion protocol at competition intensity. Push until mechanical failure.

The Results

  • Baseline average: 8.2 minutes
  • With CombatStrips: 9.7 minutes
  • Improvement: 1.5 minutes

"1.5 minutes doesn't sound like much until you realize that's 1-2 full competition rounds," one black belt participant told us.

"That's the difference between gassing in your third match and winning your fourth."

What Athletes Reported

The most common feedback: Feeling "fresh" in later matches where they'd historically fade.

Multiple athletes described opponents visibly gassing while they maintained pace.

One athlete: "Match 4 at a tournament used to be survival mode. Now it's still competitive."

Key Finding #3: Recovery (23% Faster)

The Metric

Heart rate recovery time: How long from max heart rate to 120 BPM.

The Numbers

  • Baseline: 180 seconds average
  • With CombatStrips: 138 seconds
  • Improvement: 42 seconds faster

Why This Matters

In tournaments with short rest periods between matches, recovery speed is the difference between technical execution and survival mode.

Athletes who recover faster:

  • Maintain technique in later rounds (not just strength)
  • Make better decisions under pressure (cognitive function)
  • Avoid injury from fatigue-induced mistakes (motor control)

Faster oxygen delivery → faster lactate clearance → faster energy system restoration → better performance in the next exchange.

Key Finding #4: Adhesion (99.8% Success)

The Real-World Test

  • 5,247 total training sessions tracked
  • 216 competition matches
  • 11 reported adhesion failures

All 11 failures: Attributed to improper application (skin not dry, applied incorrectly, not pressed firmly enough).

What The Strips Stayed On Through

  • 90-minute hard sparring sessions in humid gyms
  • Triple-overtime championship matches
  • Summer training in un-air-conditioned facilities
  • Full-day tournaments with 4+ matches and sweat accumulation

The medical-grade adhesive works. Even in the worst conditions. Period.

Competition Results Analysis

Medal Rate: 42% → 61%

Pre-study performance (6 months prior): Athletes podiumed in 42% of tournaments.

During study: Podium rate increased to 61%.

The Honest Caveat

We can't attribute all improvement to CombatStrips. Athletes were training and improving throughout the study period. Technical skills develop. Conditioning improves. Strategy gets sharper.

But in post-competition surveys, 73% of athletes cited "better cardio late in matches" as a significant factor in close wins.

And the pattern was consistent: Better performance in matches 3+ on tournament days—exactly where oxygen delivery should matter most.

Late-Match Performance Pattern

This was the most significant finding.

Athletes showed dramatically better performance in matches 3, 4, and beyond on tournament days. Exactly when fatigue typically destroys technique.

Quote collection from athlete surveys:

"I felt like I could keep going when everyone else was done."

"My opponent gassed in round 2. I didn't."

"Same technique as always, but I could actually execute it in match 4 instead of just knowing what I should do."

"The girl I lost to in finals was good. But I was still competitive in round 5. Previous tournaments I'd have been smashed."

Athlete Satisfaction Survey

Post-study satisfaction survey (administered 2 weeks after study completion):

  • 94% "very satisfied" with product
  • 91% "noticed performance improvement"
  • 89% "would recommend to training partners"
  • 87% "continued using in competition" (self-funded)
  • 96% "strips stayed in place reliably"

Most Common Feedback (Open-Ended Responses)

When asked to describe their experience in their own words:

  1. "Breathing feels easier, especially when I'm tired"
  2. "I don't gas as quickly in hard rounds"
  3. "Recovery between rounds is noticeably faster"
  4. "Finally, a strip that actually stays on" (many had tried consumer nasal strips before)

Individual Response Variations

Not every athlete responded identically. We identified three response categories:

High Responders (40% of athletes)

Improvement: 35%+ in oxygen metrics

Experience: Dramatic, immediately noticeable benefits

Common factor: Often had baseline nasal valve restrictions (visible nostril collapse during hard breathing)

These athletes typically reported the biggest subjective improvements and competitive performance gains.

Moderate Responders (50% of athletes)

Improvement: 25-35% in oxygen metrics

Experience: Noticeable benefits, not dramatic

Common factor: Typical nasal anatomy, no obvious restrictions

This was the most common response. Meaningful improvement, not life-changing, but consistently valuable.

Low Responders (10% of athletes)

Improvement: 15-25% in oxygen metrics

Experience: Minimal subjective difference

Common factor: Often already had excellent nasal anatomy (wide nasal passages, strong structural support)

Even "low responders" showed measurable improvement—just less dramatic than others.

Key Insight

Everyone improved. The magnitude varied based on baseline anatomy and restriction severity.

If you have nasal valve collapse during hard breathing, you're likely a high responder. If your nose already works great, you still improve—just less dramatically.

Unexpected Finding #1: The Confidence Factor

Athletes reported feeling more confident going into matches knowing they had "every advantage."

Is This Placebo?

The physiological measurements were objective—the oxygen intake improvements were real, measured by equipment.

But the psychological boost of knowing you're optimized likely contributed to performance beyond just the O2 gains.

One athlete put it well: "I step on the mat knowing I've done everything possible to prepare. That mental edge matters."

Confidence is performance. We're not going to dismiss psychological factors as "just placebo." If an athlete performs better because they believe they're optimized, that's still better performance.

Unexpected Finding #2: Training Quality Improvement

We didn't expect this.

Many athletes reported that wearing strips during hard training allowed them to push harder, leading to better training adaptations.

The compounding effect: Better training → better adaptations → better competition results, even beyond just wearing strips on competition day.

One coach noted: "My athletes' sparring rounds are higher quality now. They can maintain pace and technique for longer, which means better skill development during training."

This wasn't what we were measuring, but it showed up consistently in qualitative feedback.

Unexpected Finding #3: Nasal Breathing Maintenance

Athletes naturally maintained nasal breathing longer during exertion when wearing strips.

This gains associated benefits:

  • Nitric oxide production (vasodilation, improved O2 uptake)
  • Better breathing rhythm (less hyperventilation)
  • Reduced "air hunger" sensation (better CO2 tolerance)

Several athletes noted: "I used to switch to mouth breathing early. Now I can stay nasal longer, and when I do add mouth breathing, it's supplemental rather than desperate."

Study Limitations (The Honest Part)

What This Study Wasn't

Not double-blind: Athletes knew when they were wearing strips. Observer bias is possible.

Not isolated: We can't separate strips from overall training improvements, technical development, and other factors.

Not massive: 50 athletes is solid for a pilot study, but not huge for population-level conclusions.

Not randomized: All athletes self-selected into the study (motivated population).

What This Means

Results should be interpreted as "real-world effectiveness" rather than pure pharmacological efficacy.

The improvements are real. The measurements are valid. But we're measuring performance in complex, multi-variable environments, not controlled lab settings.

This is a strength (external validity—it works in actual competition) and a limitation (can't isolate causation perfectly).

Statistical Significance

For those who care about p-values:

  • Oxygen intake improvement: p < 0.001
  • Endurance improvement: p < 0.01
  • Recovery time improvement: p < 0.01
  • Athlete satisfaction: p < 0.001

Translation: These results aren't chance. The probability that these improvements happened randomly is less than 0.1% for O2 and satisfaction, less than 1% for endurance and recovery.

Standard statistical thresholds for "real effect" are met or exceeded.

Comparison to Existing Research

Other Nasal Dilator Studies

Our results align with published research on nasal dilators and athletic performance in endurance athletes.

Where we exceeded previous studies:

  • Adhesion success rate: 99.8% vs. 85-90% typical for consumer nasal strips
  • Athlete satisfaction: 94% vs. 70-80% typical
  • Real competition validation: Most studies are laboratory-only

Our Novel Contribution

First comprehensive study specifically with combat athletes in actual tournament conditions over an extended period (6 months).

Most existing research: Single-session lab tests with runners or cyclists. We tracked competitive grapplers through full training camps and real tournaments.

Post-Study Follow-Up (3 Months Later)

We checked in with participants three months after the study ended.

Continued Usage

  • 87% still using CombatStrips regularly
  • 62% purchased strips for teammates (unprompted)
  • Multiple competition wins attributed to product (self-reported)

The Real Validation

When athletes continue using a product after the study ends—when they're paying for it themselves, when there's no monitoring or incentive—that's the real proof.

They could have stopped. They didn't.

What We Proved

  1. CombatStrips significantly improve oxygen intake (+31% average, p < 0.001)

  2. Effect translates to measurable performance benefits (+18% endurance, 23% faster recovery)

  3. Product works in actual competition conditions (99.8% adhesion across 5,000+ sessions)

  4. Athletes notice the difference and continue using it (87% retention post-study)

What We Didn't Prove

  1. That strips alone make you a champion (you still need technique, strength, strategy, mental game)

  2. That everyone responds identically (genetics, anatomy, and baseline fitness vary)

  3. That you can skip training and rely on equipment (obviously not—this is optimization, not replacement)

Should You Try CombatStrips?

If You're:

  • Training seriously (3+ sessions per week)
  • Competing regularly at any level
  • Looking for every legal advantage
  • Struggling with cardio in late rounds
  • Dealing with nasal congestion or restricted breathing

Then:

The data supports trying CombatStrips. Most athletes see measurable benefit. Risk is minimal (cost of product only). Potential return is significant (podium finishes are worth hundreds to thousands in prize money, sponsorships, opportunities).

Worst case: You're out the cost of a box of strips. Best case: You remove a performance bottleneck and compete at your actual capacity.

Ongoing Research

We're currently running:

2-year tracking study: Long-term effects, adaptation, and retention

High-altitude training study: Performance at elevation and return to sea level

MMA-specific protocols: Striking + grappling combined oxygen demands

Youth athlete investigation: Safety and efficacy in 13-17 age group

Science never stops. Neither should your pursuit of performance.

Study funded by CombatStrips but conducted by independent sports science laboratory with peer review. Full methodology, raw data, and statistical analysis available upon request.

For research inquiries: research@combatstrips.com