Interestingly enough, I entered a friend’s clinical research study last year where they’re looking to replace the standard cardiac stress test by proving their hypothesis.
Essentially, they believe that by purposefully engaging in a combination of deep/long/shallow/etc. ("Wim Hoff style breathing techniques" - my friend’s words not mine), and get a patient to hyperventilate basically (in a controlled environment and developed protocol/framework), they could produce similar results and draw similar clinical conclusions as one would after a traditional stress test. They had me do two hours of various breathing techniques while simultaneously imaging my heart and then my brain using fMRI imaging.
* NAD but I managed to get the DICOM files and found some open source software (Horos) and loaded up the slices and it was super cool seeing what was going on during the different breathing *
I recently caught up with the individual and was told the study is in its final stages and so far looks very promising (which I’m sure all researchers say right but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt).
There are various inhalation resistance trainers on Amazon for as little as $20. I'm doubtful the more expensive devices offer any benefits over the less expensive models. In fact the simpler less expensive models look much easier to take apart and clean. As long as you are breathing against resistance, you're getting a benefit.
The article mentions that the device is used during the inhale. Doesn't clarify if it's also used during the exhale or not.
(I just rolled-up my fist and breathed through it. And it provided lots of resistance. So it looks like I might be able to make this work with just my fist.)
If anyone knows, please hit reply and let me know.
When I was working out in the gym in the summer in pandemic season with masks on, I noticed my breathlessness, the movement of the mask amplifies the visual and it was easy to draw a comparison in this way with my surrounding gym peers, and indeed I realized my lungs were in much worse shape than I'd expected, so I'm going to give this thing a try.
Edit: model featured in YouTube is not the same one the study used but close ‘nuff to get the idea.
The point is to breathe in and out as strongly/deeply and slowly as possible. You don't "do" anything aside from breathing and increasing the difficulty mode as your strength improves (over e.g. weeks).
If you breathe out quickly you're losing a large amount of the benefit of the exercise.
PS - I own a POWERBREATHE Sport, no relation to the company or this study.
The article mentioned what to do during the "inhale" but didn't mention "exhale", so I wasn't sure if one still does the restricted breathing during exhale or not.
Powerbreathe seems like an unnecessary uni-tasking gadget conforming to western sensibilities.
Zen and the Brain by James Austin details his study of Zen monks brains which revealed this breathing-stress connection scientifically decades ago.
If I remember correctly, the exhale is especially important to triggering certain relaxation states; brains of monks who were especially focused on long exhales were appreciably different from other monks.
> Powerbreathe seems like an unnecessary uni-tasking gadget conforming to western sensibilities.
This is an incredibly elitist and exclusive observation.
The use of a tool that provides positive health benefits to assist those unfamiliar with zen breathing techniques should be applauded. Meditation is ‘easy’ to those who are open and have time to commit to it, and it’s not for everyone. To some it might even be outside their own cultural or personal comfort zone, and that is entirely OK.
And what on earth is the problem with a ‘uni-tasking gadget’? My garage, bathroom and kitchen drawers are all full of these things. In fact, with the obvious exception of the smart phone, it’s the multi-tasking gadgets that should be derided (the outdoors industry is full of these, as epitomised by the ‘axesaw’).
I won’t get drawn in to free speech / whatever argument.
The tool offers a cheap shortcut to a positive health outcome. The alternatives could be medication, or a guided practice - both of which require financial and time commitments. Why would you dismiss it on some ideological grounds?
Don't know for sure but from skimming the paper it looks like it's inhalation only. "Inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST) is an alternative form of physical training that uses the diaphragm and accessory respiratory muscles to repeatedly inhale against resistance." The words "exhale," "expire," and their various inflected forms don't appear anywhere in the paper.
In the video on the webpage at 0:14 the patient is using the device only for inhaling, not for exhaling. I tried breathing through my fist and it worked really well. Since I am not interested in another device that I have to clean and carry with me on travels I will try the fist method in the next weeks.
It's adjustable with a screw down. In general though breathing through the nose just will not replicate the inspiratory effort required to use this device. Not even close.
Okay, so I have some straight up anecdotal evidence done with a real blood pressure cuff by a trained medical professional for a related phenomenon.
I have to get a buprenorphine injection monthly.
As a part of this, they take my blood pressure.
I was talking to the nurse, animatedly about the silly policies our state government has around electric scooters, as she was taking my blood pressure.
She didn't read out both for me, but I initially had "135" as the result.
The nurse got me to take 5 minutes doing a guided (heavy) breathing and relaxation protocol, and sure enough, on running the blood pressure test again, I got "118"
I agree, this is a great trick. I've been using it for almost 20 years and it's kinda funny to use around friends too, if you are playing around with home blood pressure equipment for any reason. Also take off any hats, wear loose-fitting clothing, wear sandals instead of shoes if possible, and uncross your feet if they are crossed.
Also if they are weighing you clothes-on, it's worth some care as well. A lot of doctors offices will happily register that you gained a significant amount of weight without taking into account that you are wearing work boots, jeans, a vest holding your phone, etc. vs. your last appointment in the summer when you were wearing shorts, a T-shirt, and sandals. Your doctor won't see any of this of course, so it's your word vs the EMR.
And finally, a friend tells me that you should always feel out the doctor first before showing them your full noot stack or other health experiments. ;-)
The weight thing never made sense to me. At some point I noticed doctors offices started weighing me on the way in instead of wearing the gown, as you note it's less standardized between readings. Fine whatever, but if that's going to be the case maybe don't needle me over < 5lb shifts in weight? One visit I'm wearing shorts, t-shirt, sandals, and not much else. The next visit its a heavy coat, jeans, and my pockets full of crap. I wonder what the difference was.
If you are going to study effects on blood pressure in your own physiology, I very much recommend getting a home device so you can take a lot of measurements. Blood pressure changes constantly for any reason or (as far as I can tell) no reason.
When I take my own measurements, I take five measurements back to back without moving and see bigger swings that you did. I've seen that using three different home devices. I've seen it in clinical settings being measured by many, many professionals. I remember once seeing a thirty point swing between two measurements taken immediately back to back by a nurse. The sheer amount of downright superstitious behavior I've seen in nurses surrounding blood pressure measurements is pretty incredible, too: lots of retaking measurements until the number is what they expect, repositioning, or trying something random like you did. I find it all very reminiscent of the 2 4 6 Puzzle -- a lot more confirmation and explanation than investigation.
I'm not trying to say this sort of thing is statistically invalid at a population level. On the contrary. I'm pretty convinced in my own case that breathing exercises are worth about ten points. But I strongly recommend developing a healthy respect for the sheer variability of the number before drawing strong conclusions from a low number of measurements.
It’s called the “white coat syndrome” — when you’ve just arrived to the hospital to make your appointment, and the nurse/doctor start taking your readings in a high-stress environment, the reading ends up being higher: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pr...
I actually think this is why fitness devices like the Apple Watch (v8 is supposed to be able to check blood pressure) are great in that high sampling rates probably yield overall more accurate results as outlying deviations can be more easily and methodically sorted out.
It might just be the sitting there for 5 minutes, and not so much the protocol. I get my BP checked regularly by my PCP's nurse. Usually they have me sit for a few mins and then come in to check. It's not uncommon that the first reading is higher than they'd like, and then they tell me to wait there for 5-10 mins and voila when they come back it's much lower.
There was a time (~7 years ago). We were living in NYC. The doctors office was at the top of 5 flights of stairs and the elevator was out. Having just climbed 5 flights of stairs and telling the doctor she has white coat syndrome, they _immediately_ take her blood pressure. Noting it’s (unsurprisingly) high, suggests she go on blood pressure medication. A decision that would surely have damaged her health.
4 years ago, we told her OBGYN she had white coat syndrome. We got a blood pressure cuff to use at home that recorded every reading (including date/time) so we could bring it in to her. Every reading at home, out and about, was good - even borderline low. At the doctors office, it was always high. The doctor, knowing this, STILL tried to suggest we induce early labor.
TL;DR - doctors will kill you. Your health is your own - don’t delegate the most important decision in your life.
You are completely correct with your TLDR. I saw the same when a close family member had to battle their way through the medical system to live through (and eventually overcome) advanced cancer.
I’ve started to see doctors more like advanced chatbots than anything else.
They are good if you know what you need and how to formulate your questions. They are good at searching UpToDate (a database of DDx flows). They are good at treating specific problems.
But it is a very rare doctor who takes considerate time to understand a patient and treat them holistically. I believe this is why alternative medicine providers are able to peddle their voodoo so effectively. Many people who don’t feel understood by allopathic medicine turn to cranks, because at least the cranks listen to them and make them feel heard.
That TLDR should be on every so-called physician's office, especially in America. Actual healthcare is your own duty. Most physicians are there for medicine/testing, which are both for-profit, and they are not incentivized to keep you in optimal health. In fact, they make a little bit more money if all of their clients are not too healthy... which is why so many doctors are moral injured from hospitals putting profits ahead of health when they realize they act as prescription and diagnosis drones for so many of their patients. It's better to call US "healthcare system" the "disease maintenance industry", as once you combine the "health" lobby with the "food" lobby, you see they work synergistically to keep consumers at sub-optimal health, and maximum profitability for all the leeches involved. Disgusting.
Personal opinion only but I think that in 100 years we will look back on the standard prescription drugs of the current era with the same mixture of horror and fascination that we feel today when we look back on the medicine of the 19th century.
And it's pretty much guaranteed that some of the things we do regularly these days will be viewed as completely insane. My money is on sitting the whole day or commuting with the car.
preaching to the choir here... i've felt this way since i was 18 and had to commute to uni for 1hr... i thought, my god is this what everyone does for the rest of their lives?
This is especially true for pregnancy. The provider you choose has an extreme amount of power over you towards the end.
For my first we were basically threatened and coerced for near zero medical reason to get "interventions". Before we got to the hospital we were promised one thing, but when we got there it was break her water or find a new provider and potentially have our baby die.
We trusted the doctors even though we both felt coerced and lied to. It all culminated in an unnecessary C-section 12 hours later because the doctor was already woken up for someone else. She said our baby was going to have a much worse outcome. That we would just have a c-section anyway so we might as well just do it.
I think we both deal with the team from that still.
Just remember to interview your doctor's and find local patient outcomes. We wish we had the first time.
The second went with minimal intervention and, fingers crossed, the third will go the same.
Also it's not that we are against needed intervention or chosen intervention. We simple want the best outcome for everyone. Intervention imo should be a last resort or as needed for patients like my wife.
I knew I had strep, went to urgent care to get tested so I could get antibiotics. They said there was no way I had strep, and told me the white spots all over my throat were "stress cankers". I was really sick and ended up going back 2 hours later because I wasn't breathing well. They just blew it off again and wouldn't do anything for me.
5 hours later I was in the ER because I couldn't breathe and ended up having strep and pneumonia. ER doctor said I would have died if I had waited longer since I was had sepsis. He also told me that the strep test is only 50% effective so there is no way they should have been that dismissive of me.
I have a blood pressure monitor at home and my values can go from 140/100 to 110/80 within pretty short time. It's completely insane to make a medication recommendation after only one blood pressure measurement.
I've been using a Powerbreathe for inspiratory muscle training. The daily exercise only takes a few minutes. But it requires occasional cleaning, and the spring valve sometimes gets stuck closed. I haven't noticed any obvious decrease in blood pressure.
There are inhalation resistance trainers on Amazon for as little as $20. I'm doubtful the more expensive devices offer any benefits. In fact the simpler less expensive models look much easier to take apart and clean. As long as you are breathing against resistance, you're getting a benefit.
What is the obsession of looking for a cheap way out if you are able bodied. Literally just go for a walk, run, or ride. I highly doubt doing some small activity can really compare to the full health benefits of some daily exercise.
BP tends to go up with age even being able bodied and active, so research into how to control it without medications (which have to be tuned to the individual and can have some unpleasant side effects) is worthwhile.
Yes, exercise is not always easy, but it has been worth it. I have met plenty of amazing people and gone to many interesting places because of it, its not just about the exercise. I wouldn't exchange that for sitting around retweeting Elon Musk lol.
* I have met plenty of amazing people and gone to many interesting places because of it, its not just about the exercise.*
I haven't. At best, I'm alone. At worst - especially when I was younger - I was just laughed at. Not to mention that I couldn't always do things like afford shoes that allowed me to walk regularly without pain or that I can rarely find a sports bra in my size (let alone afford it), so things like running are out of the question.
This is called Pranayam.
We are doing this in India since ages... Good to see that 'experts' from Western countries taking baby steps to learn. Good for you guys!
Keep it up.
Note 1: Some 'expert' took my comment on their ego and downvoted my comment. Guys, my comment was encouraging. Taking it on your ego is your personal choice.
mainne englo shikshakon ke saath adhyayan kiya, lekin seedhe Sri BKS Iyengar ke vansh ke tahat. mere shikshak bahut satark the. main bahut achchhe svaasthy mein hoon aur tees saal baad ab meree achchhee aadaten hain. Light on Pranayama kee adhikaansh takaneeken ek shaharavaasee ke lie, yahaan tak ki mere lie bhee, bahut unnat hain.
edit: apologies for the terrible Hindi, but since YNews was so rude to a guest with a downvote, I wanted to show some respect to the South Asian knowledge. Yogas citta vritti naroda'ha -- namaste
Does Pranayam involve high-resistance inspiratory breathing?
Anyway, this is about scientific investigation, not received wisdom and cultural or religious practice. Conceivably they could have found no effect; would you have "congratulated" them then?
> Does Pranayam involve high-resistance inspiratory breathing?
Yes, Pranayama is vast. So many different exercises for different purposes. But keep in mind that I'm a German and my knowledge is from books and some videos only. I'm no expert ...
One thing all sources I've read or seen are very clear about is that those exercises are advanced exercise. Also, Pranayama does very precisely assign exercises to specific conditions.
One thing we "western" guys can improve on is patience. I see it with myself every second of my life :-).
This is interesting, and is a pre-regisetered double blind study; still it was 18 participants in each condition, which is on the low end of what I'd find acceptable.
Of course this should not stop you from exercising where possible. It could be very useful in case of arthritis or similar conditions inhibiting exercise.
I don't fully get the "lowers blood pressure" claim. Doesn't Table S2 in the paper say that blood pressure stayed roughly the same for people doing high-resistance IMST and went up for the control/sham group doing low-resistance IMST? The question in my mind is "why does low-resistance IMST increase blood pressure?" Am I missing something?
By my understanding "casual blood pressure" is when you sit for 5 minutes in a doctor's office then have a blood pressure measurement taken [1]. "Ambulatory blood pressure" is when a monitor is strapped onto you and automatic readings are taken periodically (typically half hourly) over a period of time (typically 24 hours) then averaged.
There is some debate (according to Google), but diagnosis of hypertension typically involves an ambulatory measurement over a casual measurement. It strikes me that the ambulatory measurement is the more important one from a long term health perspective, and it's odd that the paper chose not to mention the ambulatory measurement along with the casual measurement, though I'm not a medico.
As an aside, at one point I added a microcontroller to a cheap Aldi blood pressure monitor to do ambulatory measurements. A doctor seemed keen to diagnose hypertension based on a few casual readings, but I was keen to base the diagnosis on more data.
Casual vs ambulatory blood pressure readings seem to account for the difference between what is reported in Table S2 and what is shown in the main paper. I don't know which kind of reading is more clinically significant or reliable. A little worrying that its not seen in the ambulatory too.
Comparing group means might not be quite so informative in any case, because of baseline effects (e.g. you'd want to do paired tests I think to compare the diffs)
>...the IMST group saw their systolic blood pressure (the top number) dip nine points on average, a reduction which generally exceeds that achieved by walking 30 minutes a day five days a week.
Walking isn't very aerobic. I think you would have to walk/jog up a hill for some sort of meaningful comparison.
- When lightly exercising, close eyes and focus on breathing. Note effects on heart rate.
- Get into an uncomfortable (but safe) position such as a deep squat, crab position, etc. Close eyes and focus on breathing. Note effects on feelings of discomfort, and effort to maintain the position.
I guess this would help some truly disabled people, but traditional exercise, even in similar time frames, offers so many additional health benefits than breathing techniques.
My brother, who is probably about 70 pounds overweight, takes blood pressure medication. Won't even try losing weight. He claims that "everyone he knows" takes it and just resigned to having to use it.
If you want to learn more about breathing I recommend checking out the book The Oxygen Advantage by Patrick Mckeown. It's got a bunch of different breathing exercises and ways to measure progress. It basically reteaches you how to breath too, which is fascinating on its own. Worth checking out for sure.
Amazing book! My nasal breathing definitely improved from few simple tips from the book, and I wasn't even particularly diligent with following the program very far. I'm sure I could get even more benefits if I adhered to the exercises more consistently.
Oxygen Advantage is a great book. I'd recommend James Nestor's - 'Breath' [0] as a first read, however. I feel like the book has more real world application and I picked up a number of things outside of what I learned studying Hof breathwork. I also studied, prior to both books, with Wim Hof in Poland in 2017 on one of his week long expeditions. The in person experience of group breath work is something to experience if you've never. It's so much different than working on it solo - especially if you're new to any of these methods.
Breath work and cold exposure have been a large part of my life after reading 'What Doesn't Kill Us' by Scott Carney [1]. That was the book that drove me want to experience it first hand.
Wow, you studied with Wim Hof in 2017, thats pretty damn cool! Its funny you say to start with 'Breath' because I was thinking you should start with Oxygen Advantage and then go to Wim Hof, but you sound like you have a much better background for legit recommendations. I had never heard of 'Breath' before. I'll definitely look into it. Is the Wim Hof experience just something one can sign up for? How did you end up there?
I loved reading 'What Doesn't Kill Us', and have been thinking about doing one of the week-long expeditions with Wim Hof. Did you do any prep before going on the trip, or was it your first experience with his breathwork?
Commenting on something you haven't read stating that it sounds like something isn't productive. Many of those reviews take statements from the book out of context. For example the one of those comments states the book claims a cure for ADHD. It doesn't. It's an anecdotal reference provided by Dr. Mark Burhenne. Just because a book gathers evidence in support of the books topic doesn't make it "psuedo science".
I think tying allergies to this research probably takes some effort. I will say, as someone in a similar boat, that I've gotten a lot of benefit from regular ol' allergy shots, as well as from low-grade steoroids like fluticasone when things get intense.
Separately, if you haven't heard about it already, only being able to breathe clearly out of one nostril at a time is normal, and helps your nose do its job well[0]. You may be noticing it more acutely because of your congestion.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but is there a tl;dr? Often these "self-help" books are the same concept repeated for 200 pages that can be summed up in a paragraph.
An far as I have understood, the key point is the video. It shows a guy who is sucking air throw tough device called power-meter and the greater the power the better. Also, if I've understood correctly, the very process of training the breath power is something that actually lowers blood pressure. Correct me if I am wrong because my English is not fluent and I may miss some points.
After reading Wim Hof and James Nestor a couple years ago during the pandemic, I used their techniques in full while battling long Covid.
I had a blood pressure monitor and pulse oximeter on my bedside table that I would experiment with doing these various techniques and seeing my heart rate go down, my blood pressure go down, my anxiety would disappear, lung/chest inflammation would settle, and even oxygen levels increase up to 5%.
I did this primarily because Covid reduced my average running mile time by around 20%. I was hopeful that I could make a full recovery which I did and then some.
This new tool I believe saved my life, and I’m excited to use it for the rest of it.
By "tape your mouth", James Nestor suggests taping the mouth shut while sleeping, to condition the nose (extra benefit of not drying out the gums--my dentist approves). It took months of applying a thin strip of tape vertically across my lips (surgical tape, easy to pull off if needed, but it never came to that), and now I habitually breathe through my nose at night instead of my mouth, and can nose-breathe all day, too, where before I'd need some mouth-breaths in a panic.
The switching-nostils breathing is just one way to practice (there's a list at the back of the book). If anything, best practice for oxygenation and venting C02 seems to be inhaling over 5-6 seconds and exhaling for the same or slightly longer. The more-recent book Breath Taking by Michael Stephen backs this up.
I got a pulse oximeter a couple years ago too, and it was eye opening (before COVID, and I didn't get COVID).
The realtime feedback is useful and actionable. Breathing more slowly, exhaling more than inhaling (counterintuitive), pausing, and breathing through the nose definitely make a difference for me.
But everyone is a little different so you have to experiment. Breathing is very multidimensional and hard to explain. The Nestor book is a good intro, and I've mentioned it on HN a few times before.
I'm a big believer now. It is almost laughably simple, and I have to cite the fact the fact that no company profits if you breathe better, sleep better, etc. It's a trite saying but true ...
You should get a sleep study as well. It's amazing how little oxygen you can get when you sleep. Cpap sucks to wear at night, but it forces you to take the same breathing techniques. Just avoid philips products and go resmed.
This is why I enjoyed the "tape over mouth" tip by nestor. I was a mouth breather and would not feel very rested because of it. When breathing through nose only, I felt so refreshed as if I got more oxygen.
If your oxygen level is varying significantly while at rest, you are very out of shape aerobically, and you should be getting more exercise, not obsessing about your breathing patterns.
Is this true? I run ~15 miles a week, play pickup basketball 2x a week, and lift weights 3x a week. My oxygen levels can vary 2-5% depending on circadian rhythm at rest. When doing these breathing exercises, I can stabilize it at higher levels. That's at least my experience with it.
While it's clear exercise is good for everyone, this statement is not well informed.
For example, oxygen saturation monitoring revealed my at-rest breathing reflex is completely broken due to a known genetic flaw. You know the memes about 'your breathing is now under conscious control'? Mine actually is.
That led to a sleep study-- and, yup, I don't breathe when I'm asleep. I wake every two or three minutes, all night, take a few breaths, and go back to sleep. And have all my life. The mystery of why I'm 'such a light sleeper' also revealed.
Doc I saw about it remarked the mutation is probably more widespread then we know because 'no one is looking for it'. It also completely freaked out a few anesthesiologists.
[There are other reflexes around breathing, and no, I can't just hold me breath as long as I want. The physiological reminders to breathe are pretty strong! But I routinely see my SP02 at rest drop below 70.]
Thanks for this. My pensioner mother came back from the doctors yesterday with a chest infection, on top of this she has mild bronchitis. I've just sent her this exercises as I'm hoping it might improve her lung health. Although i did send her this one which is a bit easier: https://youtu.be/0BNejY1e9ik
But thanks for posting it, I never knew about this method. Just tried it myself and it rocks.
Wow, I can't thank you enough for posting this.
I've been struggling with hypertension and anxiety for a very long time. I just tried the beginner exercise and couldn't believe the effect.
Not only could I hold my breath for longer then I was ever able to on my first try but also I felt relaxed and happy at the end of the exercise.
Wim Hof is really good, the calmness you feel after the breathing is unmatched.
There all these small techniques for managing emotions that are just not well known. If you need to calm down in the moment for example, doing a simple inhale for 4 seconds, hold for 2, exhale for 8 can make your stress melt away. Or in really stressful situations, try grabbing an icepack and holding it for a minute.
Yes sorry. I used the wrong word. It had a negative effect on my running time up to 20%. In my case it added two minutes to my 10 minute mile average. It took me awhile to get back to normal.
This has happened with Pranayama before, when it was appropriated and rebranded as 'cardiac coherence breathing' [1] and 'diaphragmatic breathing' [2].
It doesn't matter one iota if someone claims it as their own, what matters is the benefit it brings. Do you think Patanjali (or whomever) would be protective of their techniques and trademark it, patent it, and extract wealth for it?
If they don't care then neither should anyone else, and perhaps this will help the techniques spread further, which I'm sure Patanjali et al again, would not be against.
> Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission.
I await Patanjali to serve papers that use of his intellectual property isn't allowed, apparently because it reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression.
Maybe we'll hear about the Buddha's thoughts on copyright next and how derivative works are unauthorized.
It's not really cultural appropriation. It's simply false appropriation. Claiming another's works as your own fancy innovation. Claiming another's achievement as yours with no original attribution.
I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
As to the accusation that they've stolen an idea, someone should outline their accusation explicitly and then, far more importantly, explain why I should care. As I've pointed out, Patanjali wouldn't (or you can point out why he would, that would be interesting).
> I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Classic Strawman Argument. Sad to see this on HN. I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned.
They are journalists. The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics: “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.”
The outline has already been made clear by several posters in this thread.
“doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source.”
See I can pick parts of a random definition off google the same way you do.
Have you heard of “beer yoga”? Or “goat yoga”? It’s the very definition of disrespectful of the original meaning etc. I’m guessing not, but feel free to be entitled to your opinion, it’s a free country after all
> See I can pick parts of a random definition off google the same way you do.
I shared the whole definition I found from the first result returned to me[1], and I didn't use Google. If you have a better definition then I would suggest that a better response would've been to share it instead of falsely accusing others of mistakes only you have made.
Uh ok, Bing/DDG whatever, that's an odd thing to nitpick. I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what, I just pointed out that the definition YOU found from wherever, has the exact phrase I alluded to above. The phrase I quoted specifically says why this could be seen as cultural appropriation, but you seem to be intent on arguing semantics of words and nitpicking so I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
> Bing/DDG whatever, that's an odd thing to nitpick
Actually, it serves as an easy way to display how little your claim resembles reality, because it underlines how zero of what you wrote is correct.
> I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what
Have you considered reading the thread you’re commenting in and not wasting the time of others?
> I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
If you want to claim that it’s cultural appropriation then the definition matters. If the definition doesn’t matter then neither does the claim, and it would serve only as one more meaningless pejorative in the service of ad hominem that does nothing to advance the conversation. Which, as far as I can tell, is the whole purpose of “cultural appropriation” as a concept.
If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation.
The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Linux has a licence and relies on copyright law. If yogic breathing techniques did have a licence, the best you could hope for would be an MIT/BSD licence. I don't see how that advances your view.
Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
> And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point.
> Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading.
But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
No, plagiarism is important in every circle, not just academic circles.
If you copy your colleague's work at your FAANG job and claim it as your own, you will be in trouble.
If a contemporary politician claims he has come up with this novel idea where decisions can be made with "majority vote", he will be mocked out of the room.
> No, plagiarism is important in every circle, not just academic circles.
Please show me how it would be important to Patanjali, or even how it will reduce the good the techniques bring, how it will negatively impacted yoga teachers, or something other than FAANG jobs, politicians and academia that simply aren't relevant to this discussion.
I'm not sure why you keep focusing on Patanjali, who I'll concede is beyond caring about this. But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them. I'm not sure why that reason is not good enough for you? Are you the kind of person who goes trespassing in sacred native lands in Hawaii or anywhere else, because after all the elders are all dead?
I’m not the kind of person who engages in cheap ad hominem with someone they’re in discussion with, that’s what I do know.
> I'm not sure why you keep focusing on PatanjalI
He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
> But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them
Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning. Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them? Ridiculous. They’re an idea anyway, even if they were “invented” today they couldn’t be copyrighted.
This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
> Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them?
I believe so yes. Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
> He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning.
The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else. And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
> This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
This will be my last response since I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
> Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood. It would seem that your claim that such a notion is "ridiculous" is on much more shakier ground than mine. I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous". You certainly feel so, but there's nothing special or important about your feelings on the matter.
> People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
Not sure what relevance this has to the matter, but ok thanks for the clarification.
> Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
See above.
> Again, no answer, just ad hominem.
No ad hominem, just an observation. I keep saying that there are people who sometimes dislike the co-opting and whitewashing/rebranding of Yoga (see the linked article). You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here. BTW on the topic of ad hominem, you're the one who seemed close to accusing me of rabid "nationalism", perhaps not those exact words but you and I both know exactly what you mean.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali?
Why not?
> Poe's Law comes to mind.
Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
> The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood.
Why did Patanjali not mention that Indians have more claim over his techniques than humanity? Why do those who, on average, do not engage with his ideas think they have more claim on them? Are you going to claim there is an innate link between ideas, ancestry and where one is born? Ridiculous.
> I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous"
Because I assumed that relating the ownership of an idea to its geography when it is explicitly taught to be applied to any human, and moreover, that ownership to those who were born later on the same land but probably aren't using the idea, to be obviously ridiculous but I didn't take into account that you'd be a nationalist.
> See above.
You didn't answer above.
> No ad hominem, just an observation.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where the one committing the fallacy avoids addressing the substantial point with observations about their opponent in the debate.
> You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here.
Again, ad hominem. What is the bad intent? What would be bad faith? You're yet to provide a reason why this plagiarism - that you didn't bring up but waded in to - is a problem other than someone taking offence over something that isn't theirs and that they probably don't do.
> > Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> Why not?
See above.
> > Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
It wasn't part of my argument, it was an observation, though not ad hominem as I didn't avoid the point.
no, it does matter. Because once someone has appropriated it, they can block access to the original material.
Theft of the commons is one of the enduring themes of capitalism.
Could be soft-blocks, i.e. burying links to the original source so no-one finds it, reducing the number of teachers or the ability of those teachers to make a living, etc.
Could be harder blocks; say the new company patents it. Files takedown notices against alternative presentations. Yes, you could fight them on "prior art", but now you have a legal fight as well as the difficulties of promoting the technique.
And while I'll take your word for it that Patanjali et al don't mind one group spreading their techniques farther, are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
That's a slippery slope argument, which may not be fallacious, not all are.
If we accept that Hof and Nestor have "appropriated" these techniques then the next question would be how has that led to the blocks you've outlined? When will I lose access to the authentic teachings?
> are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it?
I reckon he'd be against it as Patanjali et al seem more focused on sharing the knowledge in order to benefit others but who's to know.
> Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
I think this point has been covered but I'll add that I've not noticed any form of communism in the system of yoga Patanjali systematised.
It matters because the adopter may highlight only 3 out of 20 exercises and if you did not know the original source, you may never learn about the other 17. Not that you may need the others, but maybe if you were aware, you could explore further and use the variations that are already well known to slice and dice when one kind of breathing may make sense as compared to the other.
Someone posted this link, so I am just repeating it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw. This is an hour long video focusing on different kinds of breathing as part of yoga. Do look at the top comment (as of now) as it provides time-links to 12 different kinds of breathing - bhastrika, kapal bhati, bahya pranayama, agnisaar kriya, anuloma viloma, bhramari, udgeeth, ujjai, shitali, sikkari.
If someone develops 3 of the practices on their own, sure, they can describe only what they know.
But if they sourced (and productized) 3 of them from a known source, they should refer to the main source, no? Kinda like open source - use but credit.
If I learn 3 exercises lifted from a course of 20 and start doing them, say dead lifts, pull ups and bent over rows, then because the Youtube channel I learnt them off doesn't mention the other course I'm not going to find out about it?
Even if we were to wind that back to an earlier time period without all the benefits that search algorithms and the like bring, how would one who benefits from these techniques have such low interest that they'd never bother to find out anything more? I don't buy it.
> Kinda like open source - use but credit.
I'm all for giving credit. What I don't see is how that negatively impacts anyone in this situation - is Patanjali looking for credit? Does he need credit? Have they brought any of his techniques to more people?
All of these questions are yet to be answered with anything approaching a negative impact.
I've seen comparisons to traditional breathing practices like tummo and pranayama, but never any real proof of a connection. In fact from what I can see they differ a bit even if they get similar end results.
Tummo is closer to 'Kundalini' [1] than it is to Pranayama. Pranayama can be practiced safely with a little intro, but the others I believe require serious guidance.
> Anyhow it is typical of westerners to co-opt open source eastern techniques to commercialise and pass as their invention. Same as Amazon taking open source and turning it into yet another AWS service.
> Greed & ego - pure and simple.
Perhaps, but consider: in a sibling comment, codenlearn posted a link to Wim Hof's video, I watched it, and did ten minutes of breathing exercise. He shared some knowledge (open source spirit), it was free (no commercialization), and I would not even remember his username if I hadn't copied it for the sake of this comment (no ego).
I learned more from his comment than I did from yours. You could have shared a better guide, some resource to learn about the original practices, but you didn't. Instead your comment focused exclusively on your offense at the lack of recognition for you(r in-group). What is that if not ego? Group narcissism is still narcissism.
Well, maybe. As in: sure, a lot of breathing techniques and sometimes even useful natural remedies are some of the oldest recorded ones if they are coming from "the east", but in the end that corpus of wisdom is mostly a spaghetti mess of helpful and harmful techniques that is really hard to disentangle from cultism, oogie-boogie and autocratic belief systems.
There's no shortage of stupidity in eastern "wisdom":
I for one prefer the clean extraction (or parallel invention/construction, whatever your take on that is) of single techniques based on double-blind evidence instead of being told that I can't just do breathing exercises properly without also listening to the incoherent ramblings of a random guru:
Yep, the Wim Hof method was original research too, but that guy basically just said: I tried some things, these seem to work, here's the proof, take it or leave it. Goes on to break some records and just STFU's otherwise.
You cite an NYT article "How Yoga Can Wreck Your Body". That is like citing an article "How You Can Hurt Yourself With A Kitchen Knife" to argue how the culinary arts are dangerous gobbledygook.
Yes, these practices can hurt you if you don't do them properly.
And there is nothing wrong with performing or following original research, as long as you credit the work upon which you build.
It's not difficult to find traditional eastern wisdom that have no known health benefits and can have adverse effects. Just look at Gua Sha for example. Not everything is good in TCM, a lot of it is not well tested following theories that are demonstrably false.
Does it mean that there's nothing of interest? No. There are some remedies based on Traditional Chinese Medecine that have proven to be beneficial. After all, this is how Artemisinin which is used as a cure for Malaria was discovered from a traditional herbal remedy from the 4th century. But, this is after trying multiple traditional remedies. Don't underestimate the value of curation when finding a working remedy from the multitude of non-working traditional cures.
Downvoters.. reflect on all the quackery in Western medicine for a moment. Writing so many paragraphs about all of the "stupidity in eastern wisdom" without recognizing you can make all of the same statements about Western traditions. Even in modern institutions.
So unnecessary just to say you like verifiable/repeatable studies.
Just realized, even funnier is that the studies cited on the Wim Hof site are not blinded studies at all, let alone double blind, despite the claims in that tirade.
I practice yoga and pranayama but I think for many people decoupling the breathing exercises from the spiritual side encourages them to try things they would have otherwise have shunned. I also think many of the secular breathwork practitioners aren't being deceptive - many of them are very open about their influences - Wim Hof had certainly talked about his time in India etc. What is interesting for me is understanding more of the science so we can figure out which parts of these practices matter for what and whether some parts are extraneous.
The article is about IMST, which is strictly about muscle strengthening. This is maybe a side effect of the Wim Hoff Method, but the WHM also has other purposes because the main mechanism is hyper ventilation and breath holding. Here is good medical explanation of what happens when practicing the WMH (by a medical professional): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6EPuUdIC1E (summary at 33:46).
You say “their technique” and “this new tool”. For someone who hasn’t read Hof and Nestor, could you point to any resources explaining the specific techniques you are referring to? If I go down the Google/YT rabbit hole, I fear I’ll be confronted with hundreds of such techniques and just get utterly confused. Thank you.
I was curious too. Taken from [0], not my knowledge or opinions. (I'm new to all of this.)
- James Nestor - Breath:
"I love this book and it‘s more a kind of overview about different breathing systems and techniques. He writes about Wim Hof and also about Oxygen Advantage. It‘s a good starting point into the topic of breathing. Highly recommended."
"Breathe is like a pop sci intro to breathing. It covers a lot and not very deeply, but it is engaging, makes a good case, and have a few actionable things that have a larger payoff (mouth tape)."
- Patrick McKeown - Oxygen Advantage:
"The base of this book is the Buteyko method and Patrick follows a very scientific approach. He can explain all hows and whys without beeing to complicated. Also highly recommended. You will find breath holds and reduced breathing in different techniques. Focus is on sports and conditioning. Highly recommended."
"O2 Advantage goes a lot deeper and helps you systematically evaluate and improve your co2 tolerance and thereby improve your body's ability to use oxygen. If I only could recommend one of these three, it would be this one with Breathe as a close second (simply because it is so accessible). It gives clear guidelines, tests, and actionable steps to improve your breathing. It is a very useful book."
- Wim Hof - The Wim Hof Method:
"It’s basically about breathing, cold exposure and the mind. The breathing work is about overbreathing (hyperventilation) followed by a breathhold. There are times that I love it, but science is mostly against it. I guess nobody knows why this works. Pavel is against breath holds after hyperventilation by the way (SECOND WIND). But there are lots of people having success using the WHM. I can also recommend the newest book."
"Wim Hof. It mainly focuses on a intense breathing technique and cold exposure. I know a lot of people that swear by them. I've never had any benefits from them that I could tell. After talking to some people that were really into this, they pointed out that I'm way more stressed all the time than they are. Adding more stress when you are already at max doesn't exactly help and probably hurts (more info here). This is my least favorite of the three as it has a very narrow benefit and that benefit isn't applicable to a lot of people. since it is basically a book on how to increase stress levels through breathing and cold."
Breath: the new science of a lost art, by James Nestor (book; helped me switch fully to nasal breathing, practicing better posture, warm myself when I'm cold, and breathing with my whole torso rather than just belly)
Becoming the Iceman: pushing past perceived limits, by Wim Hof (book, but I've only listened to his breathing exercises for warming the body)
The only beef i have with Wim Hof is he says one's attitude matter in following his method. He says a person should be open minded and accept without ego, something along those lines. The problem is its not quantifiable and kind of cop-out, so I don't take it too seriously.
Rather than post this completely useless comment, why don't you actually contribute by posting why you think this study should be ignored? I think many people in this comment section know from personal experience that breathing is a powerful tool for stress management so this result is intuitive to them.
breathing is a powerful tool for stress management
As is the occasional recreational drug of choice. Heck, a glass of milk before bed can do be a powerful tool for stress management. Same for going to a salon and having someone else wash your hair.
Even when it seems to work for you, you should still be sceptical when you find this stuff in a paper - especially when it is a small study. Especially with stress relief, something can "work" for you but still be completely without scientific merit (no better than a placebo, so no real benefit in telling the general population to do it).
> As is the occasional recreational drug of choice. Heck, a glass of milk before bed can do be a powerful tool for stress management. Same for going to a salon and having someone else wash your hair.
So? What does that say about this technique? I can't see the logic.
> Especially with stress relief, something can "work" for you but still be completely without scientific merit
This paper is scientific evidence. What it really sounds like is for some strange reason you don't want this to be true. Put in the effort yourself, read the study, and tell us all why this paper is bs.
243 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadEssentially, they believe that by purposefully engaging in a combination of deep/long/shallow/etc. ("Wim Hoff style breathing techniques" - my friend’s words not mine), and get a patient to hyperventilate basically (in a controlled environment and developed protocol/framework), they could produce similar results and draw similar clinical conclusions as one would after a traditional stress test. They had me do two hours of various breathing techniques while simultaneously imaging my heart and then my brain using fMRI imaging.
* NAD but I managed to get the DICOM files and found some open source software (Horos) and loaded up the slices and it was super cool seeing what was going on during the different breathing *
I recently caught up with the individual and was told the study is in its final stages and so far looks very promising (which I’m sure all researchers say right but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt).
I believe this study used the POWERbreathe K-Series: https://www.powerbreathe.com/product-category/breathing-trai...
Amazon (Plus model), $70: https://www.amazon.com/POWERbreathe-Fitness-Breathing-Traine...
From manufacturer (K3 model), $500: https://www.powerbreathe.com/product/k3/
(I just rolled-up my fist and breathed through it. And it provided lots of resistance. So it looks like I might be able to make this work with just my fist.)
If anyone knows, please hit reply and let me know.
Intervention section mentions that study participants used a device called 'POWERbreathe K3 inspiratory muscle training device'.
Googling the device provides these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5U7mDhFi4 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvtZW5Q1ox8
When I was working out in the gym in the summer in pandemic season with masks on, I noticed my breathlessness, the movement of the mask amplifies the visual and it was easy to draw a comparison in this way with my surrounding gym peers, and indeed I realized my lungs were in much worse shape than I'd expected, so I'm going to give this thing a try.
Edit: model featured in YouTube is not the same one the study used but close ‘nuff to get the idea.
The point is to breathe in and out as strongly/deeply and slowly as possible. You don't "do" anything aside from breathing and increasing the difficulty mode as your strength improves (over e.g. weeks).
If you breathe out quickly you're losing a large amount of the benefit of the exercise.
PS - I own a POWERBREATHE Sport, no relation to the company or this study.
Zen and the Brain by James Austin details his study of Zen monks brains which revealed this breathing-stress connection scientifically decades ago.
If I remember correctly, the exhale is especially important to triggering certain relaxation states; brains of monks who were especially focused on long exhales were appreciably different from other monks.
This is an incredibly elitist and exclusive observation.
The use of a tool that provides positive health benefits to assist those unfamiliar with zen breathing techniques should be applauded. Meditation is ‘easy’ to those who are open and have time to commit to it, and it’s not for everyone. To some it might even be outside their own cultural or personal comfort zone, and that is entirely OK.
And what on earth is the problem with a ‘uni-tasking gadget’? My garage, bathroom and kitchen drawers are all full of these things. In fact, with the obvious exception of the smart phone, it’s the multi-tasking gadgets that should be derided (the outdoors industry is full of these, as epitomised by the ‘axesaw’).
You found a holy war in a disposable comment. You might consider your own knee jerk reaction over something so insignificant.
“Unnecessary unitasker” is not equivalent to “all unitaskers.” Not sure how you can take the language as is an extrapolate so much drama.
Two sentences and look at the thin skins remind me “we’re a society!”
The tool offers a cheap shortcut to a positive health outcome. The alternatives could be medication, or a guided practice - both of which require financial and time commitments. Why would you dismiss it on some ideological grounds?
Probably someone with Pranayama can comment - to me this seems a modification of anuloma-viloma (alternate nostril breathing).
https://highbloodpressurebegone.com/how-to-do-hand-grip-exer...
Edit: People are disagreeing with this? Why?
I have to get a buprenorphine injection monthly.
As a part of this, they take my blood pressure.
I was talking to the nurse, animatedly about the silly policies our state government has around electric scooters, as she was taking my blood pressure.
She didn't read out both for me, but I initially had "135" as the result.
The nurse got me to take 5 minutes doing a guided (heavy) breathing and relaxation protocol, and sure enough, on running the blood pressure test again, I got "118"
Also if they are weighing you clothes-on, it's worth some care as well. A lot of doctors offices will happily register that you gained a significant amount of weight without taking into account that you are wearing work boots, jeans, a vest holding your phone, etc. vs. your last appointment in the summer when you were wearing shorts, a T-shirt, and sandals. Your doctor won't see any of this of course, so it's your word vs the EMR.
And finally, a friend tells me that you should always feel out the doctor first before showing them your full noot stack or other health experiments. ;-)
When I take my own measurements, I take five measurements back to back without moving and see bigger swings that you did. I've seen that using three different home devices. I've seen it in clinical settings being measured by many, many professionals. I remember once seeing a thirty point swing between two measurements taken immediately back to back by a nurse. The sheer amount of downright superstitious behavior I've seen in nurses surrounding blood pressure measurements is pretty incredible, too: lots of retaking measurements until the number is what they expect, repositioning, or trying something random like you did. I find it all very reminiscent of the 2 4 6 Puzzle -- a lot more confirmation and explanation than investigation.
I'm not trying to say this sort of thing is statistically invalid at a population level. On the contrary. I'm pretty convinced in my own case that breathing exercises are worth about ten points. But I strongly recommend developing a healthy respect for the sheer variability of the number before drawing strong conclusions from a low number of measurements.
I actually think this is why fitness devices like the Apple Watch (v8 is supposed to be able to check blood pressure) are great in that high sampling rates probably yield overall more accurate results as outlying deviations can be more easily and methodically sorted out.
There was a time (~7 years ago). We were living in NYC. The doctors office was at the top of 5 flights of stairs and the elevator was out. Having just climbed 5 flights of stairs and telling the doctor she has white coat syndrome, they _immediately_ take her blood pressure. Noting it’s (unsurprisingly) high, suggests she go on blood pressure medication. A decision that would surely have damaged her health.
4 years ago, we told her OBGYN she had white coat syndrome. We got a blood pressure cuff to use at home that recorded every reading (including date/time) so we could bring it in to her. Every reading at home, out and about, was good - even borderline low. At the doctors office, it was always high. The doctor, knowing this, STILL tried to suggest we induce early labor.
TL;DR - doctors will kill you. Your health is your own - don’t delegate the most important decision in your life.
I’ve started to see doctors more like advanced chatbots than anything else.
They are good if you know what you need and how to formulate your questions. They are good at searching UpToDate (a database of DDx flows). They are good at treating specific problems.
But it is a very rare doctor who takes considerate time to understand a patient and treat them holistically. I believe this is why alternative medicine providers are able to peddle their voodoo so effectively. Many people who don’t feel understood by allopathic medicine turn to cranks, because at least the cranks listen to them and make them feel heard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_coat_hypertension describes the condition.
Personal opinion only but I think that in 100 years we will look back on the standard prescription drugs of the current era with the same mixture of horror and fascination that we feel today when we look back on the medicine of the 19th century.
For my first we were basically threatened and coerced for near zero medical reason to get "interventions". Before we got to the hospital we were promised one thing, but when we got there it was break her water or find a new provider and potentially have our baby die.
We trusted the doctors even though we both felt coerced and lied to. It all culminated in an unnecessary C-section 12 hours later because the doctor was already woken up for someone else. She said our baby was going to have a much worse outcome. That we would just have a c-section anyway so we might as well just do it.
I think we both deal with the team from that still.
Just remember to interview your doctor's and find local patient outcomes. We wish we had the first time.
The second went with minimal intervention and, fingers crossed, the third will go the same.
Also it's not that we are against needed intervention or chosen intervention. We simple want the best outcome for everyone. Intervention imo should be a last resort or as needed for patients like my wife.
I knew I had strep, went to urgent care to get tested so I could get antibiotics. They said there was no way I had strep, and told me the white spots all over my throat were "stress cankers". I was really sick and ended up going back 2 hours later because I wasn't breathing well. They just blew it off again and wouldn't do anything for me.
5 hours later I was in the ER because I couldn't breathe and ended up having strep and pneumonia. ER doctor said I would have died if I had waited longer since I was had sepsis. He also told me that the strep test is only 50% effective so there is no way they should have been that dismissive of me.
https://www.powerbreathe.com/product-category/breathing-trai...
"But I like exercise" OK that's great for you, I have other things to do and not enough time to do them.
I haven't. At best, I'm alone. At worst - especially when I was younger - I was just laughed at. Not to mention that I couldn't always do things like afford shoes that allowed me to walk regularly without pain or that I can rarely find a sports bra in my size (let alone afford it), so things like running are out of the question.
Note 1: Some 'expert' took my comment on their ego and downvoted my comment. Guys, my comment was encouraging. Taking it on your ego is your personal choice.
I'd say patience. And non-attachement.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_141784
:)
edit: apologies for the terrible Hindi, but since YNews was so rude to a guest with a downvote, I wanted to show some respect to the South Asian knowledge. Yogas citta vritti naroda'ha -- namaste
Does Pranayam involve high-resistance inspiratory breathing?
Anyway, this is about scientific investigation, not received wisdom and cultural or religious practice. Conceivably they could have found no effect; would you have "congratulated" them then?
Yes, Pranayama is vast. So many different exercises for different purposes. But keep in mind that I'm a German and my knowledge is from books and some videos only. I'm no expert ...
One thing all sources I've read or seen are very clear about is that those exercises are advanced exercise. Also, Pranayama does very precisely assign exercises to specific conditions.
One thing we "western" guys can improve on is patience. I see it with myself every second of my life :-).
I sure hope Elon Musk takes over Twitter so we will not need HN to have an open conversation.
There is some debate (according to Google), but diagnosis of hypertension typically involves an ambulatory measurement over a casual measurement. It strikes me that the ambulatory measurement is the more important one from a long term health perspective, and it's odd that the paper chose not to mention the ambulatory measurement along with the casual measurement, though I'm not a medico.
As an aside, at one point I added a microcontroller to a cheap Aldi blood pressure monitor to do ambulatory measurements. A doctor seemed keen to diagnose hypertension based on a few casual readings, but I was keen to base the diagnosis on more data.
[1] https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3...
Comparing group means might not be quite so informative in any case, because of baseline effects (e.g. you'd want to do paired tests I think to compare the diffs)
Walking isn't very aerobic. I think you would have to walk/jog up a hill for some sort of meaningful comparison.
Depends how much weight is in your pack
- When lightly exercising, close eyes and focus on breathing. Note effects on heart rate.
- Get into an uncomfortable (but safe) position such as a deep squat, crab position, etc. Close eyes and focus on breathing. Note effects on feelings of discomfort, and effort to maintain the position.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/public/heart/hbp_low.pd...
and
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/wfhtn/documents/wfhtn_aha_...
My brother, who is probably about 70 pounds overweight, takes blood pressure medication. Won't even try losing weight. He claims that "everyone he knows" takes it and just resigned to having to use it.
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2019/02/25/novel-workout-impr...
https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Advantage-Scientifically-Breat...
Breath work and cold exposure have been a large part of my life after reading 'What Doesn't Kill Us' by Scott Carney [1]. That was the book that drove me want to experience it first hand.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/48890486-breath [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30039048-what-doesn-t-ki...
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526028/
In my case for a medical experiment that got published in PNAS.
WHM is the only thing I did. I’ll take a look at the book recommendations.
Separately, if you haven't heard about it already, only being able to breathe clearly out of one nostril at a time is normal, and helps your nose do its job well[0]. You may be noticing it more acutely because of your congestion.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cycle
How should I breathe?
I had a blood pressure monitor and pulse oximeter on my bedside table that I would experiment with doing these various techniques and seeing my heart rate go down, my blood pressure go down, my anxiety would disappear, lung/chest inflammation would settle, and even oxygen levels increase up to 5%.
I did this primarily because Covid reduced my average running mile time by around 20%. I was hopeful that I could make a full recovery which I did and then some.
This new tool I believe saved my life, and I’m excited to use it for the rest of it.
can you link to the exact regimen? tia
Nestor stuff is short. Breathe through nose, tape your mouth, right nostril inhale/left exhale.
The switching-nostils breathing is just one way to practice (there's a list at the back of the book). If anything, best practice for oxygenation and venting C02 seems to be inhaling over 5-6 seconds and exhaling for the same or slightly longer. The more-recent book Breath Taking by Michael Stephen backs this up.
The realtime feedback is useful and actionable. Breathing more slowly, exhaling more than inhaling (counterintuitive), pausing, and breathing through the nose definitely make a difference for me.
But everyone is a little different so you have to experiment. Breathing is very multidimensional and hard to explain. The Nestor book is a good intro, and I've mentioned it on HN a few times before.
I'm a big believer now. It is almost laughably simple, and I have to cite the fact the fact that no company profits if you breathe better, sleep better, etc. It's a trite saying but true ...
For example, oxygen saturation monitoring revealed my at-rest breathing reflex is completely broken due to a known genetic flaw. You know the memes about 'your breathing is now under conscious control'? Mine actually is.
That led to a sleep study-- and, yup, I don't breathe when I'm asleep. I wake every two or three minutes, all night, take a few breaths, and go back to sleep. And have all my life. The mystery of why I'm 'such a light sleeper' also revealed.
Doc I saw about it remarked the mutation is probably more widespread then we know because 'no one is looking for it'. It also completely freaked out a few anesthesiologists.
[There are other reflexes around breathing, and no, I can't just hold me breath as long as I want. The physiological reminders to breathe are pretty strong! But I routinely see my SP02 at rest drop below 70.]
Not only could I hold my breath for longer then I was ever able to on my first try but also I felt relaxed and happy at the end of the exercise.
Thank you!!!
There all these small techniques for managing emotions that are just not well known. If you need to calm down in the moment for example, doing a simple inhale for 4 seconds, hold for 2, exhale for 8 can make your stress melt away. Or in really stressful situations, try grabbing an icepack and holding it for a minute.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/health/india-pranayama-yoga-c... [2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/learning-diaphragm...
If they don't care then neither should anyone else, and perhaps this will help the techniques spread further, which I'm sure Patanjali et al again, would not be against.
> Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission.
I await Patanjali to serve papers that use of his intellectual property isn't allowed, apparently because it reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression.
Maybe we'll hear about the Buddha's thoughts on copyright next and how derivative works are unauthorized.
I refuse to disguise my disdain for this idea.
This gets you banned in academics.
As to the accusation that they've stolen an idea, someone should outline their accusation explicitly and then, far more importantly, explain why I should care. As I've pointed out, Patanjali wouldn't (or you can point out why he would, that would be interesting).
Classic Strawman Argument. Sad to see this on HN. I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned.
They are journalists. The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics: “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.”
The outline has already been made clear by several posters in this thread.
We're on a thread where someone is accusing Hof and Nestor of plagiarism and you made that comment as part of the thread
> I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned.
If you want to make it extra clear that it's irrelevant, that's fine by me, but it's not a straw man either way.
See I can pick parts of a random definition off google the same way you do.
Have you heard of “beer yoga”? Or “goat yoga”? It’s the very definition of disrespectful of the original meaning etc. I’m guessing not, but feel free to be entitled to your opinion, it’s a free country after all
I shared the whole definition I found from the first result returned to me[1], and I didn't use Google. If you have a better definition then I would suggest that a better response would've been to share it instead of falsely accusing others of mistakes only you have made.
[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cultural-appropriation-...
Actually, it serves as an easy way to display how little your claim resembles reality, because it underlines how zero of what you wrote is correct.
> I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what
Have you considered reading the thread you’re commenting in and not wasting the time of others?
> I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
If you want to claim that it’s cultural appropriation then the definition matters. If the definition doesn’t matter then neither does the claim, and it would serve only as one more meaningless pejorative in the service of ad hominem that does nothing to advance the conversation. Which, as far as I can tell, is the whole purpose of “cultural appropriation” as a concept.
If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation.
The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point.
> Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading.
But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
If you copy your colleague's work at your FAANG job and claim it as your own, you will be in trouble.
If a contemporary politician claims he has come up with this novel idea where decisions can be made with "majority vote", he will be mocked out of the room.
And so on.
Please show me how it would be important to Patanjali, or even how it will reduce the good the techniques bring, how it will negatively impacted yoga teachers, or something other than FAANG jobs, politicians and academia that simply aren't relevant to this discussion.
> I'm not sure why you keep focusing on PatanjalI
He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
> But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them
Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning. Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them? Ridiculous. They’re an idea anyway, even if they were “invented” today they couldn’t be copyrighted.
This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
I believe so yes. Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
> He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning.
The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else. And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
> This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
Sounds good, I wish you well.
> I believe so yes.
Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
> Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice
People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
> but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
> I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
This is the thread you're on[1], do you have it confused with another?
> The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else.
Again, no answer, just ad hominem. Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
Poe's Law comes to mind.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31036720
> Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood. It would seem that your claim that such a notion is "ridiculous" is on much more shakier ground than mine. I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous". You certainly feel so, but there's nothing special or important about your feelings on the matter.
> People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
Not sure what relevance this has to the matter, but ok thanks for the clarification.
> Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
See above.
> Again, no answer, just ad hominem.
No ad hominem, just an observation. I keep saying that there are people who sometimes dislike the co-opting and whitewashing/rebranding of Yoga (see the linked article). You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here. BTW on the topic of ad hominem, you're the one who seemed close to accusing me of rabid "nationalism", perhaps not those exact words but you and I both know exactly what you mean.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali?
Why not?
> Poe's Law comes to mind.
Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
Why did Patanjali not mention that Indians have more claim over his techniques than humanity? Why do those who, on average, do not engage with his ideas think they have more claim on them? Are you going to claim there is an innate link between ideas, ancestry and where one is born? Ridiculous.
> I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous"
Because I assumed that relating the ownership of an idea to its geography when it is explicitly taught to be applied to any human, and moreover, that ownership to those who were born later on the same land but probably aren't using the idea, to be obviously ridiculous but I didn't take into account that you'd be a nationalist.
> See above.
You didn't answer above.
> No ad hominem, just an observation.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where the one committing the fallacy avoids addressing the substantial point with observations about their opponent in the debate.
> You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here.
Again, ad hominem. What is the bad intent? What would be bad faith? You're yet to provide a reason why this plagiarism - that you didn't bring up but waded in to - is a problem other than someone taking offence over something that isn't theirs and that they probably don't do.
> > Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> Why not?
See above.
> > Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
It wasn't part of my argument, it was an observation, though not ad hominem as I didn't avoid the point.
(Whatever appropriated means)
/s
Theft of the commons is one of the enduring themes of capitalism.
Could be soft-blocks, i.e. burying links to the original source so no-one finds it, reducing the number of teachers or the ability of those teachers to make a living, etc.
Could be harder blocks; say the new company patents it. Files takedown notices against alternative presentations. Yes, you could fight them on "prior art", but now you have a legal fight as well as the difficulties of promoting the technique.
And while I'll take your word for it that Patanjali et al don't mind one group spreading their techniques farther, are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
And I find your comment on 'theft of the commons' insightful.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali [2] https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm
If we accept that Hof and Nestor have "appropriated" these techniques then the next question would be how has that led to the blocks you've outlined? When will I lose access to the authentic teachings?
> are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it?
I reckon he'd be against it as Patanjali et al seem more focused on sharing the knowledge in order to benefit others but who's to know.
> Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
I think this point has been covered but I'll add that I've not noticed any form of communism in the system of yoga Patanjali systematised.
Someone posted this link, so I am just repeating it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw. This is an hour long video focusing on different kinds of breathing as part of yoga. Do look at the top comment (as of now) as it provides time-links to 12 different kinds of breathing - bhastrika, kapal bhati, bahya pranayama, agnisaar kriya, anuloma viloma, bhramari, udgeeth, ujjai, shitali, sikkari.
If someone develops 3 of the practices on their own, sure, they can describe only what they know. But if they sourced (and productized) 3 of them from a known source, they should refer to the main source, no? Kinda like open source - use but credit.
Even if we were to wind that back to an earlier time period without all the benefits that search algorithms and the like bring, how would one who benefits from these techniques have such low interest that they'd never bother to find out anything more? I don't buy it.
> Kinda like open source - use but credit.
I'm all for giving credit. What I don't see is how that negatively impacts anyone in this situation - is Patanjali looking for credit? Does he need credit? Have they brought any of his techniques to more people?
All of these questions are yet to be answered with anything approaching a negative impact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini
Perhaps, but consider: in a sibling comment, codenlearn posted a link to Wim Hof's video, I watched it, and did ten minutes of breathing exercise. He shared some knowledge (open source spirit), it was free (no commercialization), and I would not even remember his username if I hadn't copied it for the sake of this comment (no ego).
I learned more from his comment than I did from yours. You could have shared a better guide, some resource to learn about the original practices, but you didn't. Instead your comment focused exclusively on your offense at the lack of recognition for you(r in-group). What is that if not ego? Group narcissism is still narcissism.
in Hindi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rsaiwudWOI
same instructor, with English voiceover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw
There's no shortage of stupidity in eastern "wisdom":
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/how-yoga-can-wre... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790910/
I for one prefer the clean extraction (or parallel invention/construction, whatever your take on that is) of single techniques based on double-blind evidence instead of being told that I can't just do breathing exercises properly without also listening to the incoherent ramblings of a random guru:
https://www.wimhofmethod.com/science
Yep, the Wim Hof method was original research too, but that guy basically just said: I tried some things, these seem to work, here's the proof, take it or leave it. Goes on to break some records and just STFU's otherwise.
Yes, these practices can hurt you if you don't do them properly.
And there is nothing wrong with performing or following original research, as long as you credit the work upon which you build.
Does it mean that there's nothing of interest? No. There are some remedies based on Traditional Chinese Medecine that have proven to be beneficial. After all, this is how Artemisinin which is used as a cure for Malaria was discovered from a traditional herbal remedy from the 4th century. But, this is after trying multiple traditional remedies. Don't underestimate the value of curation when finding a working remedy from the multitude of non-working traditional cures.
So unnecessary just to say you like verifiable/repeatable studies.
- James Nestor - Breath:
"I love this book and it‘s more a kind of overview about different breathing systems and techniques. He writes about Wim Hof and also about Oxygen Advantage. It‘s a good starting point into the topic of breathing. Highly recommended."
"Breathe is like a pop sci intro to breathing. It covers a lot and not very deeply, but it is engaging, makes a good case, and have a few actionable things that have a larger payoff (mouth tape)."
- Patrick McKeown - Oxygen Advantage:
"The base of this book is the Buteyko method and Patrick follows a very scientific approach. He can explain all hows and whys without beeing to complicated. Also highly recommended. You will find breath holds and reduced breathing in different techniques. Focus is on sports and conditioning. Highly recommended."
"O2 Advantage goes a lot deeper and helps you systematically evaluate and improve your co2 tolerance and thereby improve your body's ability to use oxygen. If I only could recommend one of these three, it would be this one with Breathe as a close second (simply because it is so accessible). It gives clear guidelines, tests, and actionable steps to improve your breathing. It is a very useful book."
- Wim Hof - The Wim Hof Method:
"It’s basically about breathing, cold exposure and the mind. The breathing work is about overbreathing (hyperventilation) followed by a breathhold. There are times that I love it, but science is mostly against it. I guess nobody knows why this works. Pavel is against breath holds after hyperventilation by the way (SECOND WIND). But there are lots of people having success using the WHM. I can also recommend the newest book."
"Wim Hof. It mainly focuses on a intense breathing technique and cold exposure. I know a lot of people that swear by them. I've never had any benefits from them that I could tell. After talking to some people that were really into this, they pointed out that I'm way more stressed all the time than they are. Adding more stress when you are already at max doesn't exactly help and probably hurts (more info here). This is my least favorite of the three as it has a very narrow benefit and that benefit isn't applicable to a lot of people. since it is basically a book on how to increase stress levels through breathing and cold."
[0] https://www.strongfirst.com/community/threads/james-nestor%E...
Becoming the Iceman: pushing past perceived limits, by Wim Hof (book, but I've only listened to his breathing exercises for warming the body)
Well, I never really got Covid myself, I feel good knowing your recovery experience with that method
Now, I should start using Wim Hof or similar method already
As is the occasional recreational drug of choice. Heck, a glass of milk before bed can do be a powerful tool for stress management. Same for going to a salon and having someone else wash your hair.
Even when it seems to work for you, you should still be sceptical when you find this stuff in a paper - especially when it is a small study. Especially with stress relief, something can "work" for you but still be completely without scientific merit (no better than a placebo, so no real benefit in telling the general population to do it).
So? What does that say about this technique? I can't see the logic.
This paper is scientific evidence. What it really sounds like is for some strange reason you don't want this to be true. Put in the effort yourself, read the study, and tell us all why this paper is bs.