Talk:Lung volumes

message: "The average pair of women's lung can hold only about 4.5 litres of air; when comparing to men's lung which can hold up to about 5 litres of air" - This is not a suitable way to open the article. Besides, the difference in lung capacity between males and females is already mentioned in the second paragraph; it is completely unsuitable as a first sentence. Owen× ☎ 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I believe there is a misleading comment in this section of the article. As it stands, the article states that "there is less oxygen in the air at altitude". However, this comment is misleading, as there is still, to my knowledge, the same proportion of oxygen versus other gases in the atmosphere at all altitudes (at least within the troposphere); the air just becomes less dense as you go up. So, while the comment is technically correct, it is still misleading, as it suggests it is only oxygen that decreases in amount, when in reality the lower density would lower the amount of all gases entering the lungs.
I hope this issue can be cleared up easily. I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy to find a source for my statements. (I know them from my high school curriculum.)
Keith Davies Lehwald 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors affecting lung volume: Altitude 

message: What happens to lung capacity under pressure? Under water, for divers, for instance, does ERV+RV and TV decrease? (assume shallow 10 m dive, with air mixture)
:I don't think so. The higher pressure outside is more-or-less matched by pressure inside. If the pressure inside remained at one atmosphere, the diver would find it very difficult to breathe. --Ihope127 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lung capacity under pressure 

message: In the article is seems as though there are two definitions of FRC. Near the top it says it is ERV + RV and near the end of the article it says it is IRV + RV. Which is the correct one? 64.81.186.50 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FRC 

message: Whoops, seems that you indeed use L in some places of the world. Feel free to revert my changes if you wish :) --SLi 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liter abbreviation 

message: i noticed most of the measurements are either in Litres or Millilitres i was wondering wat temperature and pressure these were recorded at, as if these variables change the true consumption of atmoshphere changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.194.243 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litres 

message: In http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070419113731AAz33un a pseudonymous poster "Matt A" (who claims to have a degree in respiratory science and be a registered respiratory therapist) claims that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) caused by smoking results in *increases* in total lung capacity (TLC) and residual volume (RV), but decreases in functional capacity.  That smoking increases TLC is confirmed by, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8966368&dopt=Abstract  , the abstract to which mentions in passing that they are using large TLC as an operational definition of emphysema caused by smoking.  (That paper is entitled "Alcohol consumption modifies the total lung capacity in smokers", and it's by Strom et al., in Respiration, 1996;63(2):66-72.)
I don't feel that I'm qualified to edit the facts of this Wikipedia article, but in light of this somewhat paradoxical effect, perhaps the "heavy smokers" item being in the "decreases lung capacity" column is somewhat misleading?
Kragen Sitaker 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the point above. From my own measurements as a medical student, and form several literature sources (used a long time ago) I know for sure that smoking doesn't lower the total volume of the lungs. It does severely affect the capacity to extract oxygen from the air, but that's something different. I've seen indications that smoking during adolescence even leads to higher lung volumes due to a compensation effect. But I have no proof on this statement. When nobody objects I will chance the content within a few weeks. --Frodo Muijzer (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yahoo answers" item about smoking 

message: who has the largest lung capacity on record?
Does any one know the answer to this particular question?
:The largest total lung capacity recorded was that of British rower Peter Reed, with a volume of 11.68 l. is listed in the article, no citation is given. Demantos 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most search results, like this say 9.38 l for him. And his record category appears to be "biggest lungs on a British athlete", rather than "world's biggest lungs". Quite impressive nontheless, as even with athletes, slightly above 8 seems to be the upper limit; and most spirometers measure only up to 7. I once met a free diver at a party, who said his lung capacity was 8.2 l, and that the record for a Finnish diver was 8.8 l. I wonder how people with gigantism fare on this one... --Anshelm '77 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: Each of these terms has a specific meaning. There are four volumes that are distinct and that do not overlap. These four volumes can be combined to form the capacities. While it is quite easy to fall into the trap of sloppy language, it will lead to endless confusion. Docdave (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the terms Volume and Capacity in lung measurement 

message: The comments from the TOP of this talk page have been moved to this section.  I am not certain which comment that editor Vihsadas is in agreement with.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that the alveolar and arterial oxygen tensions are usually very close, although there is typically a small gradient which increases with age (see alveolar-arterial gradient, which incidentally could use some love). I also agree that our presentation of the effects of altitude on lung volumes is confusing, somewhat dubious, and (most importantly) unsourced. Maybe we can find a good source and go from there? MastCell Talk 19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from TOP 

message: "Residual volume" redirects to this article, but nowhere in the article does it explain what, exactly, residual volume is. I'm not sure where this explanation should go, but here is a short description of the subject. If there is already an article that discusses residual volume, then the redirect should be pointed there.
216.99.210.236 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residual volume 

message: I find this article bewildering.  
In part this is because some sentences are made hard to understand because of poor grammar, eg "Tidal breathing is normal, resting breathing; the tidal volume is the volume of air that is inhaled or exhaled in a single such breath.".  Replacing the semi-colon with a full-stop would give: "Tidal breathing is normal, resting breathing.  The tidal volume is the volume of air that is inhaled or exhaled in a single such breath." which I assume is closer to the intended meaning. 
However the main reason for bewilderment and frustration is that no model is decribed in the article of the various lung capacities and terms used.  There is no straightforward, clear and simple explanation of what is being referred to.   The article instead addresses itself immediately to more detailed discussion and provides a side-bar list of abbreviations which does not suffice.  To understand the subject the article concerns, the reader needs to assemble their own model.  
As the only place the terms used are defined is in a list of abbreviations, the only means of constructing this model is to search the article for references to the terms in question one at a time; to locate them in the text associated with the list of abbreviations; and to make a note of their meaning.  Once the key terms and definitions have been so deduced a model of their use can be assembled (by the reader) and with this model the figures given (and explanation of variations between demographics etc) can then be understood (or not, I didn't have time to complete the necessary work).  
IMO the article ought to begin by setting out the terms used so as to describe the model and should only then proceed to more detailed discussion.
LookingGlass (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing - needs clarification 

message: Lung capacity/volume is the same whether you are a wind player or a drummer. Lung Capacity-Wind Players should be merged to Lung volumes on that basis Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Lung Capacity-Wind Players]] 

message: Is there a reason to put "of air" after expressing a volumetric measurement?  e.g. "The average total lung capacity of an adult human male is about 6 litres of air."  Shouldn't the sentence just end with "Litres" ?
64.211.58.60 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "about 6 litres of air" is better for the average reader (even though it might be redundant etc).-73.61.15.12 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Air 

message: * How much does a Breath of Air weigh?
: (maybe we should do something to feature this question and answer, since currently google search is surprisingly unhelpful)
: basic simple answer -- about a gram
A Litre of air weighs about 1.25 grams (1.2-1.3 Kg per cubic metre). Let's find a way to include this in the article, so that curious readers can figure out how much a Breath weighs (half Litre ordinary tidal breath would be just over half a gram; full 5L max vital breath would be just over 6 grams, less than a quarter ounce).-73.61.15.12 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of Breath