Talk:Diaphragmatic breathing

message: I recently revised this page. Moving forward, this article needs to focus less on complementary and alternative medicine, and more on available scientifically-attained knowledge. Yet even when discussing alternative medicine, reliable sources can and must be used. Before you decide to edit the Diaphragmatic Breathing page (or any page), make sure you understand what constitutes a reliable source. For the best help on this, read wikipedia guide on identifying reliable sources (medicine).
Before I revised it, most of the citations (6 out of 8) and external links (10 out of 11 or so) on this article were from CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practitioners or other sources without medical credential; these citations were used to make general claims about the benefits of diaphragmatic breathing.
An article which seeks to outline the physiological, mental, or emotional benefits or costs of a specific physiological behavior must use as a foundation methodologically-sound medical research. It must be clear to the reader that without evidence, even widely-held CAM beliefs are just that: beliefs. They may be accurate, but that cannot be known with any degree of certainty without the use of studies.
Alternative medicine practices can, with conditions, merit inclusion
CAM is a subject of study in itself, and if there are common and shared CAM practices or beliefs related to diaphragmatic breathing, perhaps they deserve space on this page. However, to merit inclusion, discussion of the use of diaphragmatic breathing in CAM needs to be accompanied by sources that demonstrate the prevalence (past or present) of this use, and/or the prevalence of the specific kind being discussed.
These CAM understandings of the benefits or costs of a physiological behavior may complement, but should not be presented as a substitute for (as they were treated in this article), reliable medical knowledge.
In other words: Any particular model or method of breathing that is claimed to be relevant here (that is, relevant because it sees wide use in some movement or population of CAM), needs to have those claims accompanied by evidence that that particular model or method has seen such wide use.
What sources should not be cited here:
There is nothing that can be gained in this article by linking to a self-published guide on "proper" "deep breathing" technique written by website authors, CAM practitioners, book authors, or even a local doctor or clinic: these sources do not (usually) sufficiently demonstrate that the technique used is medically beneficial (nonetheless superior to others), nor alternatively demonstrate that their mentioned technique is widely used among a segment of society
What sources should be cited/linked here:
#methodologically sound medical references or studies that
#*review/study the anatomy of breathing, the diaphragm's role in breathing, the ability to voluntarily alter one's movement around the diaphragm.
#*review/study the results of different kinds of breathing (if possible) and demonstrate or show no evidence of, specific benefits or harms from deep-breathing,
#As well, it would be appropriate to cite methodologically sound, demographic, sociological or historical references or studies that 
#*review/study the prevalence of a particular CAM practice in regard to deep-breathing. A CAM practice being limited to a particular culture and time does not limit its conclusion here, as long as there is substantial evidence that it was widely used (its wide use is not just a possibility).
Again, the best advice is at wp:identifying reliable sources (medicine).
--Monk of the highest order(t) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use reliable sources on this page 

message: I just noticed that at the end of the References section there are two links, which are not directly associated (cited from) the article.  I don't remember I have seen this in any wikipedia article before.  Either the correct citation is missing (so we should find and correct this), or we should move those to the "External Links" section.  Here are the two links:
* Diaphragmatic Breathing
* Diaphragmatic Breathing for Anxiety Disorders
Leontaurus (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Ref Links to External Links

message: Yes --this article is very misleading --all breathing uses the diaphragm! It's impossible to breathe without using it --so better usage would be belly-breath (abdomen moves) or thoracic breath (where the thorax moves) --or a blended breath, where both move. But to call a particular breath pattern diaphragmatic implies that there is non-diaphragmatic breath --which there is not. I'm a yoga teacher trainer. See Leslie Kaminoff's Yoga Anatomy for a good description of the breath in yoga practice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDB2:21F0:5914:626A:6F81:74E7 (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like it.  Also see to the section Talk:Diaphragmatic_breathing#what_is_the_scope_of_this_article.3F.  I'll begin moving things from here and Shallow_breathing to Breathing#Mechanics — which itself needs layout improvements — and Muscles_of_respiration in the next few months.  — JamesEG (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a disaster? 

message: I have heard that this type of breathing activates the parasympathetic nervous system through activation of the vagus nerve. Can someone please check this and if true, please include in the article?  It would seem very relevant -- this exercise can be used to activate the system which is opposed to the fight/flight system and help return the body to homeostasis. User:1000Faces
:'Deep breathing' is classified by NCCAM as a relaxation technique and you can find more information on the effect of deep breathing, in the way that NCCAM is using the phrase, on the nervous system (yes it does activate the parasympathetic nervous system causing a relaxing response, we believe) by doing a Google search. makeswell (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activation of the parasympathetic nervous system? 

message: This article seems to cover multiple topics at once. Are we referring to deep breathing when used as a relaxation technique, or to diaphragmatic breathing when done without being aware of it, or to, say, diaphragmatic breathing when done while singing? Do we want to split these topics up into separate pages, or mention the uses of diaphragmatic breathing somewhere on this page? I think that we should at least mention the difference between deep breathing as a relaxation technique and deep breathing or diaphragmatic breathing as a passive action that contrasts with shallow breathing. Please share your thoughts and we'll continue from there. Thanks. makeswell (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the scope of this article? 

message: I'm going to move the material on the three-part yogic breathing to the page Talk:Pranayama because that is the category under which that type of breathing belongs. For instance, diaphragmatic breathing is only the first of the three stages, and so therefore these are not the exact same thing. If somebody would like to link to Pranayama, or mention Pranayama on this page, then that'd be appropriate. Here's a copy of the material I will be moving, (which by the way seems very biased and the only citation it provides is from a site that is definitely not scholarly)
"There are some  yoga and pranayama teachers believe that the most complete and fullest way of breathing is the "three-part breath," also called in yoga "The Complete Breath," which includes diaphragmatic breathing as the first step, followed by thorax expansion and then chest expansion. This method of breathing is considered in Tantric yoga to facilitate the greatest flow of life force through the body. There are several variations of the "three-part breath"; however, many  breath therapists and breathing teachers maintain that this approach can create breathing imbalances and other problems.The Complete Breath in Yoga"
If you have any opinion about this move, whether for or against, please mention it and say why. Thanks. Peace doggs. makeswell (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm moving some material to Pranayama Talk page

message: The first paragraph is anatomically incorrect and needs revising. It suggests that there is a separate form of breathing involving the diaphgram. However, the diaphgram is involved in all breathing; one can't involuntarily choose to breathe, or not breathe with the diaphgram and often, the term "Diaphragmatic breathing" is conflated with techniques that focus on expanding the belly as a means of allowing for 'fuller' or larger intakes of oxygen. I think where the confusion occurs is when individuals take more shallow, or rapid breaths (which allow for less expansion of the belly) as in hyperventilation, or when individuals with diseases such as COPD, rely more on upper chest muscles (intercostals, for example) to assist in breathing, because of inefficiencies in normal breathing patterns. Therefore I am proposing the following revision to the first paragraph:
Diaphragmatic breathing - a term often used interchangeably with the phrases abdominal breathing, belly breathing or deep breathing- is a type of breathing technique marked by more focused expansion of the abdomen or belly, and less of the chest during inhalation. It is used by some, especially in the complementary and alternative medicine community, as a therapeutic breathing technique.
If anyone has anything to add, finds any errors, or opposes the change, I welcome hearing them. If not, I will make the proposed change.Ronsword (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Change To First Paragraph

message: I tagged this article for the following reasons.
Firstly, volitional control of the diaphragm is impossible, and the idea that it is derives from a number of misuses of ideokinetic imagery, including in vocal pedagogy, where it is typical to instruct pupils to 'breathe with' or breathe from' the diagphragm.
In evidence-based rehabilitative interventions, the term 'abdominal breathing' is used to denote the process by which a patient is encouraged and taught to increase expansion of the abdominal wall, which has the effect of increasing descent of the diaphragm, shifting emphasis away from elevation of the chest via contraction of thoracic muscles.
However, in common parlance, the terms 'diaphragmatic' and 'abdominal' breathing are often used interchangeably.
It is true that some forms of Complementary and Alternative Medicine comprise breathing techniques, some of which confuse the the two terms. But that accounts for only one among many contexts in which abdominal breathing plays a role, which also include physical therapy, paramedical and emergency interventions, relaxation technique, stress management, and vocal pedagogy.
There are also a number of Eastern esoteric and meditative traditions, including Yoga, that encourage abdominal breathing, which have highly specific terms for the process and its alleged anatomical components. But this has an entirely seperate history up until the point during the 20th century when such practices became known in the west, particularly Europe and North America.
Subsequently, in addition to the conflating and confusion of the terms abdominal and diagphragmatic, methods with discreet origins
were merged, or synthesized.
This article therefore provides a potentially misleading introduction to the subject, further perpetuating a historic lack of clarity.
I have marked it as an article to contribute to, but wanted to tag it, as it may be a while before I get to it, and in the meantime, the tag might perhaps attract others. It also warns readers of the accuracy dispute, which I think is important, given the above comments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 04:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I agree the article is confusing. The information "out there" on Internet is confusing as well. Most web articles seem to equate diaphragmatic breating with belly breathing, but here is an example of a web page that contradicts this message:  which states: "Diaphragm breathing is often referred to as belly breathing, but that is not correct. When the diaphragm contracts and descends into the abdominal cavity the intra-abdominal pressure increases and will distend the abdominal wall. In efficient diaphragm breathing the distension of the abdominal wall should be three dimensional with a slight expansion in all directions. The abdominal wall should oppose the action of the diaphragm with an eccentric contraction of all the abdominal muscles. The opposing action of the abdominal wall is very important in controlling the length tension relationship of the diaphragm muscle. Any skeletal muscle, including the diaphragm, has a length-tension relationship where decreased length (contraction) decreases the force of the contraction. The opposing forces created by the abdominal muscles in their eccentric contraction maintain the zone of apposition and the dome shape of the diaphragm, and thereby facilitates the increased force of the diaphragm. Belly breathing only distends the abdomen forward, which does not offer any resistance to the diaphragms motion and will therefore actually reduce the diaphragm’s ability to contract efficiently." I know web pages do not meet WP:MEDRS, yet the different kinds of information that are available "out there" leaves readers (me at least) with a nagging feeling of doubt. If "diaphragmatic breathing" has different meanings, it would be good if this were explained in this article. (Of course based on WP:MEDRS sources, which is presumably difficult...). --2A02:810D:D40:9910:59B2:1358:AD07:3E34 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate and Confusing

message: I noticed this section of the article.  It is single line and there is a reference (13) to a very informative site.  I do not know however if this is a valid reference for wikipedia.  Plus it seems to me to offer some free lessons, video tutorials.  I think this will later lead to a payed course.  Comments/suggestions from the more experienced people here please? Leontaurus (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to singing

message: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201302/the-neurobiology-grace-under-pressure
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/p/paced+breathing+activity.html
I wanted to throw a couple of possibly more relevant sources of information.  Personally, I'd take all of the alternative medicine talk out of this to legitimize the topic.  Unless it actually attracts at least some people to use diaphragmatic breathing, I suppose.  Maybe just say a little blurb about yoga or something, but the rest should be all about the science.  I'd scrap the singing stuff too.  As someone else mentioned, I too have heard a medical professional give a spiel on diaphragmatic breathing and it's role in reducing anxiety by lowering heart rate amongst other physiological affects.  He calls it "belly breathing" to children and "combat breathing" to law enforcement officers to combat job stress and to give it a cool name... I digress.  I included a couple of links above that sound a bit smarter than ayurvedic medicine or whatever is going on here.Jawz101 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article has serious problems, e.g, "... suggesting the speculated separation between the two isn't as neat as some would like to believe." With no attribution. Wow; there is a LOT to unpack in that sentence, and no science. I came here trying to figure out what "belly breathing" vs "diaphram" vs (etc), and am leaving just as confused. Apparently these terms mean whatever a particular user wants them to mean. Dhysom (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagus Nerve and the parasympathetic nervous system

message: I removed several sections because this article was starting to look like a WP:COATRACK.  I left the "benefits" section intact because it had reasonable references (but I did edit one of the citations and condensed the wording).  But the sections on martial arts, music, and complementary and alternative medicine were questionably-sourced and barely relevant anyway.  I am still concerned about the disproportionate number of references to I. Shaw, which lead me to believe someone is trying to self-promote, but will not take them out because they appear to be solid references. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be primary studies rather than reviews, so I'm not sure that they conform to WP:MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Content Cut