Talk:Breathwork (New Age)/Archive 1

Archive 1

merge

Merge Conscious Connected Breathing to breathwork because most of that is already here. And CCB is just the basic technique of some forms of breathwork.Merkinsmum 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

-merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky Parkin (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further reading, and sources

This comment was copied here as part of the Merge discussed above by Sticky Parkin in this dif Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If some of these books are used as sources for the text, they need to be put next to the specific lines of text in [] brackets, then they will show up as references. And they need to use proper wikipedia referencing code so they show in the references section. A 'further reading' section is not in most articles unless it's a couple of whole books. This list was called 'references' in the CCB article but they're not references unless they are mentioned next to the relevant bit so people know what they are sources for. WP:CITE explains how to do all this. This further reading/sources section needs to be checked to see if the type of source is ok, (not a fringe spiritual journal, ideally.) I've removed those that were from journals already listed in the links section. |Sorry if that seems wrong, merging is tiring lol:). If you decide to reinstate all these, please just alter that bit rather than simply revert me as my edit was a big cleanup from a merge. I look forward to more references being properly added for this article, and will try myself too.Merkinsmum 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and response

Criticism: Last part of the first paragraph in "criticism" (starts with "However,...") has been removed due to not being critical at all but explaining why the criticism is inadequate. Should this part be brought back in the article, sources are necessary.

Response: I suggest to move the content of this area to "Criticism" creating a "critique-response" style. Also. Proper citations needed. Nitrobga (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)

List of references moved from article

I'm moving this list from the article. Many of these look unreliable for biomedical content and it's not clear how (if at all) they relate to the article body. If anybody can shed any light on this please say so!

• Lukoff, David; Lu Francis G. & Turner, Robert P. (1998) From Spiritual Emergency to Spiritual Problem: The Transpersonal Roots of the New DSM-IV Category. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38(2), 21-50 [1]
• Brown,R.P and Gerbarg,P.L "Sudarshan Kriya Yogic Breathing in the Treatment of Stress, Anxiety, and Depression: Part I Neurophysiologic Model" in The Journal of Alternative And Complementary Medicine, Vol 11, No 4, 2005, pp 189–201
• Brown,R.P and Gerbarg,P.L "Sudarshan Kriya Yogic Breathing in the Treatment of Stress, Anxiety, and Depression: Part II Clinical Applications and Guidelines" in The Journal of Alternative And Complementary Medicine, Vol 11, No 4, 2005, pp 711–171
• Grof, S., The Adventure of Self-Discovery. SUNY, 1988.
• Grof, S., with Bennett, H. The Holotropic Mind: The Three Levels of Human Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives. HarperCollins, 1992.
• Grof, S. "Physical Manifestations of Emotional disorders:Observations from the study of non-ordinary states of consciousness" in Exploring Holotropic breathwork: Selected Articles from a Decade of the Inner Door. Taylor, K [Ed.] Hanford Mead, 2003
• N.Janakiramaiah,B.N.Gangadhar,P.J.Naga Venkatesha Murthy,M.G.Harish,D.K.Subbakrishna,A.Vedamurthachar "Antidepressant efficacy of Sudarshan Kriya Yoga(SKY)in melancholia:a randomized comparison with electroconvulsive therapy(ECT) and imipramine", Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol 57, 2000, pp 255–259
• Heyda, A., 2003, An Impact of Conscious Connected Breathing on Emotional States, The Healing Breath Journal – a Journal of Breathwork Practice, Spirituality and Psychotherapy, vol.5, no 2 p. 9-18 www.healingbreathjournal.org
• Heyda, A., 2003b, "Application of Breathwork in Psychotherapy of Oncological Patients (Zastosowanie pracy z oddechem w psychoterapii pacjentów onkologicznych)", Reports Of Practical Oncology And Radiotherapy, vol.8, suppl.2, str 179
• Heyda A,. Jurkowski MK, Głowala - Kosińska M, Czuba A, Składowski K, 2007, "Conscious Connected Breathing Training Decreases Level of Anxiety and Depression and Increases NK Cell Counts in Breast Cancer Patients: Preliminary Report". poster presentation, World Congress of Psycho-Oncology, London 17–19 September 2007, Psycho-Oncology, vol.16, no 9 suppl, September 2007, p. 224-225
• Heyda A, Jurkowski MK, Składowski K, 2008, Emotional Stress, Cortisol and Peripheral Blood Cells in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breathork Training During Radical Radiotherapy, Psycho-Oncology, vol.17, no 6 suppl, June 2008, p. 266-267
• Leonard, J., The Skill of Happiness. Three Blue Herons, 1996.
• Rajski, P. 2002, "Alcoholism and Rebirthing.", International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling 24: 123-136
• Rajski, P., Delgado, T., Dowling, C., Heyda, A., Sudres, JL., Vignali, E., 2003, Standards of Rebirthing-Breathwork as Therapy, The Healing Breath Journal – a Journal of Breathwork Practice, Spirituality and Psychotherapy, vol.5 no 3, p. 6-26, www.healingbreathjournal.org
• Rhinewine, J. P., Williams, O. J. "Holotropic Breathwork: The Potential Role of a Prolonged, Voluntary Hyperventilation Procedure as an Adjunct to Psychotherapy". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 13(7), September 2007. pp. 771–776. 2007
• Rubin B.K., 1983. "Cognitive, Affective and Physiological Outcomes of Rebirthing". Washington, American University.

-- Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically "New Age"?

Breathwork is an umbrella term for various New Age practices...

The article also mentions yoga and T'ai chi, among other Eastern traditions that include a focus on the breath, which pre-date the New Age movement by centuries. Are these also covered by common usage of the term "breathwork"? Maybe not, and the structure of that section seems to imply they're separate, but it's not clear.

If they're included, should the introductory line say something like "New Age and Eastern practices"? That's vague, though.

A short section on usage of the term would be useful and would help classify this. When/where did it originate? (I've been into yoga & meditation for years but hadn't heard the term until it started popping up in different places in the past year.)

Thanks --Chriswaterguy talk 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for or against

Did a quick Google search on evidence breathwork - these were hits number 1 & 3. Unsure of their suitability. No further time to work on this, so I'm sharing them here:

Breathwork: An Additional Treatment Option for Depression and Anxiety? - Original paper published in The Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy (2011)

"Findings suggest qualified support for the key theoretical assumptions of a three component breathwork model, referred to as Integrative Breathwork Therapy (IBT), and its possible utility in the treatment of anxiety and depression."

The conclusions summarising their review are interesting, including "There is empirical support for the idea that sustained inhibited breathing patterns can develop in response to stressful environments. Research also suggests inhibited breathing lowers brain oxygen and reduces serotonin synthesis with consequent increase in depressive symptomology. Further, a feedback loop involving cognitive, physiological and neurological components may perpetuate inhibited breathing and symptoms of depression and anxiety. In addition to the encouraging results from the breathwork study by Sudres et al. (1994) noted in the introduction, there is empirical support for yoga breathing-based interventions in treating depression, and meditation-based approaches demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of depression and anxiety."

Holotropic Breathwork: the potential role of a prolonged, voluntary hyperventilation procedure as an adjunct to psychotherapy.

"Further research using more sophisticated methodologies than have been used to date will be necessary in order to confirm or refute the hypothesis that HB may be useful in treatment of psychiatric disorders."

Also, this looks very interesting, but I don't know that it's a reliable source: A Clinical Report of Holotropic Breathwork in 11,000 Psychiatric Inpatients in a Community Hospital Setting

--Chriswaterguy talk 00:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

These sources in order:

1. Does not appear to be in PUBMED/MEDLINE which is a red flag, probably not WP:MEDRS for health claims
2. Link does not work but assuming it's PMID 17931070, this is a hypothesis paper in a fringe journal, so not WP:FRIND at least
3. Self-published primary research? The opposite of reliable.

Alexbrn (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note

I find this entire article baffling. As far as I can tell, the editors have neither knowledge nor experience with any form or breathwork, or any of its historical antecedents, and have removed all content from anyone who does, bringing nothing to the article but a dismissal of anything that doesn't fit into a narrow scientific materialistic perspective. I would be happy to contribute to an article that actually says something about breathwork. Rdlong03 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seems to me we could expand this article using some of these or we could merge this into Mindfulness. It is going to remain a sore point as long as it remains a stub like this. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have an interest in breath control and just wondered if you had come across these, certainly not conclusive, studies about Yoga. Breath control is fundamental to the practice. Here are the papers:

http://www.onlinejcf.com/article/S1071-9164(07)01166-9/abstract

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paula_Pullen/publication/232109170_Yoga_Therapy_Improves_Markers_of_Inflammation_and_Overall_Well-Being_in_African-American_Patients_With_Chronic_Heart_Failure/links/555d2d8e08ae9963a11228e1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatIsTruth25 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

content about health needs sourced to secondary or tertiary sources; those are both primary sources. See WP:MEDDEF Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness

This section is pretty weak. Effectiveness needs to address the lead to the article, i.e. that "conscious control of breathing is meant to influence mental, emotional and physical state – sometimes to claimed therapeutic effect." Emphasis on sometimes. The ability of breathwork to influence physical state, for example, is not in dispute AFAICT. See: Tummo, where studies have shown that practitioners can increase body heat by a substantial amount. See also Wim_Hof who uses Tummo perform all sorts of cold-related stunts that would kill the average person.24.90.168.157 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that Tummo article was full of rubbish (I have cleaned it up). Do you have an actual proposed edit? Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

clearly biased

this was written by someone just with an axe to grind; it's not really an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltonhall (talk • contribs) 08:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What would you add to make it more encyclopedic and less POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.132.77 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Breathwork has greater efficacy than article indicates

This article says that breathwork is useless, and defines it as a pseudoscience. However, some studies indicate its efficacy for reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety.

References

97.82.216.250 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

first ref is from a journal that is not indexed in MEDLINE and so doesn't meet WP:MEDRS, the guideline for sourcing content about health - see here. second ref is PMID 26565611 and is a primary source, which we don't use for content about health, again per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

This page is total Newspeak -- written by ignorant and bigoted people. It does not have any sources that are related to the page. The page should be deleted and replaced by an authoritative practitioner of breathwork. Dg4corners (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done WP:NOTFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Transpersonal Research

This source is primary research in a fringe journal (not in PUBMED let alone indexed by MEDLINE). It is unreliable, especially for claims of therapeutic effectiveness and cannot be used here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Going to keep adding these sources as you are a highly biased individual who should not be editing pages that you know nothing about. Darwin3881 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Before you add them again, you need to read WP:MEDRS. And, seriously, look at the sources you added. The first one identifies itself as a pilot study in its title and had only 29 subjects, the second had only 20 subjects, and neither had a placebo control, as far as I can see from the abstracts. Brunton (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." The claim that it may effect DAS is a lightweight claim. The word "way" imposes that it might and is not certain. This is definitely a lightweight claim. Darwin3881 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much any claims about human health are not "lightweight". We're not going to be using these crappy sources. Alexbrn (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying something "may" improve something is the same as saying we are not sure but should look into it further. Definitely a lightweight claim. Please provide exact reference to where all human mental health claims are not lightweight claims. Darwin3881 (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. We generally do not use primary sources for WP:Biomedical information. If you want more editors' eyes on this, feel free to raise it at WT:MED or WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Darwin3881: - now you're whitewashing the article and adding information from an unreliable source (i.e. published by Frontiers Media), and from a Cochrane review which makes zero mention of "breathwork", so is WP:SYNTHESIS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

See this is what I mean about not being qualified to write an article. As I wrote in the last edit, "Breathwork" is actually just the new age term for Yoga "Pranyama" which means control of breath. So by saying that the source did not mention Breathwork is incorrect as it mentioned Yoga Pranayama which is control of breath which is Breathwork. Also please provide an exact link to where it says that Frontiers In Human NeuroScience is not a reliable source. Not a vague link to a wikipedia page but a quote or equivalent. FYI "Holotropic Breathing" is really "Bhastrika Pranyama" (Bellows Breathing) from "Hatha Yoga Pradipika" a text written hundreds of years ago. The founder of Holotropic breathing renamed it for marketing and copyright purposes. This breathing method is also called "Quick Fire" breathing in certain esoteric sects of Taoism. I'll say it again "Breathwork" is just the new age term for Yoga Pranayama, breathing techniques that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. You obviously did not know this and that is why I take issue with people who know nothing about the subject editing it. Darwin3881 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• You're wrong per our sources. Our article already explains how "breathwork" is defined in Wikipedia, using applicable sources. Your views as an editor are irrelevant. The methods investigated by Cochrane have nothing to do with rebirth etc. that these fringe pursuits promote.
• If you want to edit about Pranayama, we have a whole distinct article about it,
• Check the archives of WP:RS/N for discussions of Frontiers journals. A core concept of WP:RS is that source should be reputably published. This isn't. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So you removed a Cochrane review reference because it had "nothing to do with Breathwork" you are completely wrong and it you who is whitewashing this page. As you said to me when I first joined wikipedia "Please discuss an issue with an editor before reverting their edits". Darwin3881 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What about Wim Hof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.84.146 (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

False claim - "Breathwork has no proven positive health impact other than promoting relaxation and can cause distress."

Breathwork is a practice that intakes higher levels of oxygen than what normal homeostasis efforts produce. Higher levels of oxygen have many proven health impacts other than promoting relaxation, most notably sustaining human life and improved stamina. Breathwork also focusses on nasal breathing to incorporate the filtration and absorption anatomy of human nasal paths. Breathwork strengthens the nasal paths and lungs which makes them more capable of dealing with respiratory viruses and infections. I could go on and on about the health benefits of breathwork, which is why I recommend editing the claim about having "no proven positive health impacts". Joshdagostino2020 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source? Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The existing statement is supported by American Cancer Society complete guide to complementary & alternative cancer therapies that is considered reliable for Wikipedia. Breathwork should also not be confused with respiratory therapy... —PaleoNeonate – 22:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying: respiratory therapy of course makes no claims of cancer cures. —PaleoNeonate – 02:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article take a strong cue from James Nestor's new book "Breath" which takes a broad look at breath science, of which there is a lot. It is a NYTimes best seller, and has received good support from the medical community. There are great studies on the impact to immune system, anxiety and mood, and athletic performance cited in the book. Here's a link: https://www.mrjamesnestor.com/breath —Zujine|talk 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be usable although probably not for biomedical claims unless an official medical body also supports and cites those from it, —PaleoNeonate – 02:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd go a little bit further than PaleoNeonate and say that The James Nestor book "Breath" is unreliable for any medically related claims, particularly those related to breathing. from the link provided above is this little gem .. "I ended up traveling the world in an attempt to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. The answers, I discovered, weren’t found in pulmonology labs but in the muddy digs of ancient burial sites, secret Soviet facilities, New Jersey choir schools, and the smoggy streets of Sao Paulo." there is more, but we have a million year history of broken breathing, so I'm kinda questioning how we managed to not suffocate a million years ago. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Or to find the key to perfect health and immortality, considering the claims made about pranayama by some, despite the many followers, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll look into the source material Nestor references to include with any suggestions, but I don't think we should begin a practice of de-legitimizing a new book on the subject that this article covers. I'll propose some edits with references. I should also note here, that the term "breathwork" does cover a lot of esoteric practices as well as a good deal of BS, and I'm fine calling out the BS. However, I'm a humble person, and I respect the limits of my knowledge and do not seek to deride something that I haven't studied in depth. I found a lot of Nestor's points to be very compelling, and I thought it would be good to include in this article. Perhaps I should have started a new topic instead of adding to this one which began as a negative thread. —Zujine|talk 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The book is light years away from being a usable source. In general, health content on Wikipedia needs to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

4-7-8

Is 4-7-8 breathing the same as breathwork? SyntaxPedant (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge the information one way or other, but No Consensus on which article title it should be. - And as such, I'll revert the redirect on Conscious breathing, as well. Please find consensus before redirecting again. - jc37 17:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing a merge of Conscious_breathing (which is largely overlap) and Rebirthing_(breathwork) which is a very short page with few sources, perhaps not notable enough for its own page. --Karinpower (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support a merge of this, plus the Breathwork topic, but with Conscious Breathing being the resulting page and Breathwork being a section. Breathwork appears to be a subset of the former prioritising the new age elements over the historical, philosophical and clinical elements. Kev (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope others will weigh in on this as well. To me the terms are synonymous. Also if anyone knows if any of the more credible sources discuss this difference, that would be super helpful as ultimately we should look to sources to determine what is the term that is most in common use - and in this case, possibly the term that serves better as an umbrella for the others.--Karinpower (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it seems “breathwork” is like a trademark but conscious breathing is well known in many areas - yoga, singing and musical instruments requiring controlled breathing for example. People get benefits from this. It’s nothing new and doesn’t deserve to be called “new age” since it’s pretty straightforward. Deep breathing to alleviate anxiety is common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyntaxPedant (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think Conscious breathing would be a good master title. "Breathwork" seems to be how RS refer to this altmed cluster of therapies. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• I support merge as these seem to cover the same topics. "Conscious breathing" would be my preferred title as it is, to me at least, the clearest description of the article's subject matter.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support; Breathwork, Conscious breathing, and Rebirthing (breathwork) are stubbish redundant articles and have been for years so they clearly don't warrant separate articles. It would best to consolidate them under a single article so editors can focus their efforts. The term Conscious breathwork already redirects to Breathwork, so I agree that the best title and umbrella term for these practices is "breathwork" and that the other articles would best be merged into Breathwork.

However, I also agree that it is inappropriate to label all these practices as "New Age" alternative medicine; although many methods of breathwork are associated with "New Age"-y thinking and pseudomedical claims, "methods that direct awareness to the breath" and/or which involve "the conscious control of breathing" are not in themselves necessarily "New Age" or alt-med. (Conscious awareness of breathing in the form of Anapanasati and conscious control of breathing in the form of Pranayama are well-established in Buddhist and Hindu meditation practices respectively and long predate "New Age"-y interpretations and alt-med practices. Similarly, forms of breathwork, particularly conscious diaphragmatic breathing and mindfulness of breathing, are well established practices in evidenced-based therapy. Therapists asking patients to take slow, deep breaths is practically a cliche.)

Therefore, I suggest that the lead paragraph of the merged Breathwork be edited/rewritten to make it more appropriate for the combined content and that the merged article be clearly sectioned to distinguish between the basic idea of breathwork (awareness of breathing, control of breathing) and its fringe applications in "New Age" alt-med practices like Rebirthing (breathwork). Scyrme (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note that "Breathwork" gets 20 hits on PUBMED[1] whereas "conscious breathing" gets 6.[2] That really doesn't look good for the proposed structure of making breathwortk a subset of "conscious breathing". However, the merge as proposed as Conscious breathing is "It has been suggested that this article be merged into Breathwork". Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support merging all these into Breathwork, as that seems to be the most common generic term used by sources, and agree that the lead of that article will then need to be revised to make it more suitable for a generic term, and certainly to remove “new age” from the opening sentence. Brunton (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support' per Brunton. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've merged Rebirthing (breathwork), which seems uncontentious. Klbrain (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for conscious breathing, given that there's a range of techniques that arguably don't fall into New Age: perhaps some religious practices and Mindfulness. It also seems that there is enough information to keep Breathwork as a distinct set worthy of separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly why I suggested the merged article be revised to clearly distinguish the basic concept from its fringe applications. The distinction can be made within a single article. Labelling all breathwork as "New Age" was always problematic, and isn't even supported by the reference provided in the first sentence of Breathwork. Notably, that reference explicitly identifies "conscious breathing" as "breathwork".

I suspect the "New Age" description was a clumsy effort to identify the methods presently listed at Breathwork as alternative medicine; older revisions of the article did not include this description, and were clearly aiming at a wider scope until the article was redacted by later edits. – Scyrme (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I was bold and merged Conscious breathing into this article, although there was not a lot of material that was sourced & reliable that wasn't already here. The source article is linked in lots of other articles. I haven't changed those links yet, but unless there is strong disagreement with this decision, I will take care of that task. Joyous! | Talk 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joyous!: Your merge doesn't seem to have taken into account the concerns by editors above, including myself, that this article should clearly distinguish the alt med ("New Age") applications from the rest. – Scyrme (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove alternate medicine classification

Given breathwork is pretty widely used and recommended for anxiety and relaxation by medical professionals (among others), I do not find the inclusion of this article in the "Alternative Medicine" category warranted. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Except: follow the sources. Your edit seemed WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources .. this is the first hit from Google Scholar:

Self-Regulation of Breathing as a Primary Treatment for Anxiety

Understanding the autonomic nervous system and homeostatic changes associated with emotions remains a major challenge for neuroscientists and a fundamental prerequisite to treat anxiety, stress, and emotional disorders. Based on recent publications, the inter-relationship between respiration and emotions and the influence of respiration on autonomic changes, and subsequent widespread membrane potential changes resulting from changes in homeostasis are discussed. We hypothesize that reversing homeostatic alterations with meditation and breathing techniques rather than targeting neurotransmitters with medication may be a superior method to address the whole body changes that occur in stress, anxiety, and depression. Detrimental effects of stress, negative emotions, and sympathetic dominance of the autonomic nervous system have been shown to be counteracted by different forms of meditation, relaxation, and breathing techniques. We propose that these breathing techniques could be used as first-line and supplemental treatments for stress, anxiety, depression, and some emotional disorders.

DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is an unreliable source. See WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Youll need to be more specific.

Its also not the only source to say this. Cleveland Clinic, Journal of Mental health Counseling, Nature. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring now. Continue and you will be sanctioned. You need to read WP:MEDRS; all of it. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I note that the article does not have any text or citations establishing the alternative medicine category. Supporting text and citation to this effect should be added, or the category is unsupported and should be removed. Same goes for the New Age practices category. We all know its both, but the reader may not so the article has to state it explicitly. Skyerise (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Its not only that the article lacks citations establishing the alternative medicine category, material from mainstream medical and psychiatric sources on this are being intentionally excluded to ghettoize this topic. DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarrellWinkler: If you look at the edit history, you will see that that is actually not true. The article is larger than it has ever been: nothing has been intentionally removed. It's simply that no one with a broad knowledge of the area along with reliable sources has bothered to write in depth about the subject here yet. That's different from what you are claiming. If you think you can do it, then by all means do. Just realize that strong claims require strong sources. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

These claims arent really all that strong. Breath work is one of cornerstone exercises of CBT. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

All claims of health benefits are considered "strong claims" on Wikipedia. Your sources just need to pass muster, that's all. Skyerise (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe the Journal of Mental Health Counseling article could be a reliable source. I'll defer to @Bon courage: as to whether it meets WP:MEDRS, as that's not my specialty. Skyerise (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It could be, except the linked article is apparently not even in PUBMED, which seems odd. It seems to be discussing mindfulness, pranayama and breathing exercises, which are not the whacky altmed varieties this article addresses. The whole topic space is a mess in RS. I wonder if this article's content shouldn't be moved Breathwork (alternative medicine) and Breathwork itself made a disambiguation page? Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also Conscious breathing (which according to above posts was supposed to be merged here on 7 November 2022 but has apparently been recreated) and Control of ventilation. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

... Integrative Breathwork, Transformational Breathwork, Shamanic Breathwork, Conscious Connected Breathing, Radiance Breathwork .... Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of which are probably not notable. Most of the books on these breathwork splinters/trademarks are self-published. The few I could find that are independently published I've listed in further reading. Skyerise (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ill come back to my original intent with this article that the way its presented (currently) leaves the reader with the impression its all bunk. Sure, some of the claims are bunk but on the whole this is a well recognized therapeutic tool:

This scoping review supports the clinical utility of breathwork interventions and discusses effective treatment options and protocols that are feasible and accessible to patients suffering anxiety.

The article not reflecting any of this (and there are so many sources) and emphasizing only on the wilder claims is not right and the reflexive knee jerk reaction to making improvements on the article is quite disturbing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

An article in a dodgy MDPI journal is not really evidence of anything much. This article is about the altmed (i.e.) bunk versions of breathwork. Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The entire point is that this article should not be exclusively about the altmet aspect of this but on the real documented effects these techniques can have in a therapeutic environment. From PUBMED:

Overall, results showed that breathwork may be effective for improving stress and mental health

Using a mixed-effects model, we show that breathwork, especially the exhale-focused cyclic sighing, produces greater improvement in mood (p < 0.05) and reduction in respiratory rate (p < 0.05) compared with mindfulness meditation. Daily 5-min cyclic sighing has promise as an effective stress management exercise.

Clinical observations and data from neurophysiological studies indicate that HVB is associated with extraordinary changes in subjective experience, as well as with profound effects on central and autonomic nervous systems functions through modulation of neurometabolic parameters and interoceptive sensory systems.

This isnt about one article in one (allegedly) dodgy publication. The military, for example, has been using breathwork (box breathing specifically) for years as a way to reduce acute stress and anxiety. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to manage its topic space. We don't want to mix up the "bunk" (your word) with any legitimate work. Sources do not use the word "breathwork" consistently so we need to decide how to slice it. We really don't want to use Scientific Reports and your second article is on "High Ventilation Breathwork", which seems like yet another distinct thing. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

All this can be captured in one article, I really dont understand the hesitancy. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not. We have Pranayama, Breathing and Mindfulness which cover various aspects which some sources call "breathwork", while other sources don't, and equate "breathwork" entirely with rebirthing. As I say, the solution is probably a disambiguation page. But we need somewhere to park the bunk. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It would appear, based on the sources provided, the rebirthing aspect is whats at issue not necessarily "breathwork". DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow up - what sources equate breathwork entirely with rebirthing and are these more numerous? According to Google Scholar, articles with "breathwork and rebirthing" gives 597 results and articles excluding rebirthing gives 11,100 results. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the Ernst source for one. But it's not *just* rebirthing. There's Holotropic breathwork and other "bunk" in the mix. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is specifically about New Age breathwork. Always has been. Any other forms of breathwork should go in different article(s). Skyerise (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)