I have found breathing exercises to strengthen my diaphragm hugely helpful for acid reflux. I lie down with weights on my abdomen and breathe from the diaphragm for about 10 minutes a day. I’ve been able to stop PPIs completely by doing this regularly.
Do you have more info on this? I’ve suffered from GERD for a long time now and have found ways to mitigate the effects but this seems like an interesting potential treatment.
Not the same thing, but I believe the parent commenter because I’ve seen multiple studies done where it was found that breathing exercises seemed to help with reflux: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807765/
No one seems to have mentioned Wim Hoff here ( https://www.wimhofmethod.com/ ). He’s got some claims that verge on the suspicious but the actual method itself is worth doing purely if you’re an interested sort. Before, I can do about 40 seconds held on an out breath, after, about 2:40. That’s kinda interesting. I’d also recommend trying it if you’re a meditator. Do a WH session first, then sit. It’s really great for…
The article mentions the first class the author took taught them Sudarshan Kriya, which is a particular kriya that the Art of Living Foundation teaches. From what I understand a large part of the kriya involves bhastrika pranayama, which is pretty much what the beginning Wim Hof method is, except he adds a kumbhaka (breath retention/hold) at the end of the 30 breath cycle. I appreciate what Wim Hof is doing, but a lo…
What I find nice about his technique, is that it is much simpler than yoga and pranayama. He does not, for example, emphasise inhaling or holding or exceeding for a particular count of seconds. I find that it is easier to perform the
Wim Hof technique because of this.
The breathing technique which is closest to Wim How is that of Tummo. You can find videos of this on YouTube:
I started reading his book Breath , and he made the starting claim that, in essence, you could choose to be either energetic or restful by picking one nostril to breathe out of for awhile. (Naturally we breath out of one nostril at a time, and the body goes back and forth, but "it's a balance that can also be gamed"). I found this claim a bit... suspicious, and Googled, and didn't find much scientific evidence for th…
With a lot of these things I would highly recommend to just try it. If it works for you, good. If not, don't do it. It doesn't cost anything and you won't harm yourself. I started yoga before it became mainstream and with a lot of the practices I tried them for myself. For example I noticed that some pranayama practices work for me and others don't. Back then pretty much every "serious" scientist or doctor would have…
It's not true that it won't harm you if not done properly.
Please learn it from professionals or friends who are already well versed in the practice if you are new to it.
With a lot of these things I would highly recommend to just try it. If it works for you, good. If not, don't do it. It doesn't cost anything and you won't harm yourself. I started yoga before it became mainstream and with a lot of the practices I tried them for myself. For example I noticed that some pranayama practices work for me and others don't. Back then pretty much every "serious" scientist or doctor would have…
This. The purpose of science is to discover the truth, not make the truth. You don't science to confirm everything before you try it. With things like breathing where you know it's not going to cause harm, just try it for yourself.
Reminds me of the President's rhetorical "What do you have to lose?", that he apparently hadn't thought through.
Humanity has historically taken a trial and error approach to most things - medicine, engineering, cooking, etc. Advances in technology are usually the result of tinkering as opposed to directed research or science. The science usually comes later (if and when someone funds it) to explain why it works. It's ugly, but it's how we usually lumber along. And yes, many mistakes and pseudoscience take place along the way.…
I think we agree - trying things you think might work is a good place to start, then you can attempt to confirm that empirically. Predictions have to start somewhere. What bothers me about the comment I replied to was the hostility to trying to understanding the underlying mechanism. "As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is?" is not a good position. That kind of thing leads to peo…
I am usually a skeptical person and am aware that there is a lot of pseudoscience floating around. But, I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. People try things and what works is later scrutinized and better understood in a scientific way if you will. What doesn’t work will get itself out of the way eventually. You are free to practice whatever you think is understood(and also be aware that current understanding is bound to change, sometimes it does take 180’ turns). But you risk missing out on things that are not yet understood and yet beneficial. Sure, all people are at risk of wasting their time with a quack theory or practice. Again, I dont think that is a bad thing, more people may become skeptical that way
The problem is that you're biased - confirmation bias, expectation bias, selection bias, optimism bias, observer expectancy effect, the list goes on - and you end up learning all things except the truth.
As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is? Placebo may play a role in it but once again, what do we care about here, whether something is beneficial or whether it can be explained why it is beneficial? For some the former and for some the latter, ofc depending on perspective.
Maybe there are more reliable ways to achieve the benefit for a greater number of people. Science offers an approach to discovering this, and the "why" - the theory - is what drives science.
This article is very relevant to what I've recently experienced. I haven't experienced the sweating but I've experienced the serenity that follows controlled breathing. I'm reading an English translation of Ramana Maharshi's Upadesa Sara with commentary and verses 11-14 talk about controlling the breath (pranayama). A few relevant points made in those verses: * Controlling your breath can help quieten the mind. * The…
I'm prone to anxiety, and find myself hyperventilating often. Is this what you mean by "harmful breathing patterns"? I've tried the "box breathing" with little luck, but have adapted a version where the exhale is 2-3x longer than the inhale. (inhale for 2 seconds, hold it a couple seconds, exhale slowly for 4-6 second, hold again). I've also found better luck at inhaling into my belly, instead of letting my rib cage…
I’ve found box breathing to be useless at best. There are better alternatives in Nestor’s book
As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is? Placebo may play a role in it but once again, what do we care about here, whether something is beneficial or whether it can be explained why it is beneficial? For some the former and for some the latter, ofc depending on perspective.
As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is? I do. I hate being wrong about stuff.
But even if you think you’re right you may be wrong. All current understanding is bound to change when better understanding is achieved. Sometimes things that are scientifically thought to work in a certain way take turns, sometimes going into opposite directions. So even if you think you understand something, it’s healthy to keep a bit of skepticism and a bit of open mind.
As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is? I do. I hate being wrong about stuff.
Wrong about what exactly? I'd say I'm mostly a breathing skeptic, but if it makes you feel better, then... it makes you feel better and you aren't wrong for feeling better.
Wrong about what exactly?
If someone observes measurable benefits after (e.g.) breathing through one nostril for a while, I'd consider it important to know exactly why. Maybe there are important things about the mechanics of respiration that we haven't understood yet. Dismissing such phenomena with "If it feels good, who cares why?" seems counterproductive in the long run.
OTOH, if no one sees measurable benefits, then the various anecdotes from practitioners really are just bias in action, and (IMO) are not worth expending further thought on.