Clinical Studies into BreathingClinical Studies about the importance of optimal breathing. By: Michael White (used by permission) For over 30 years, exciting data has been collected that supports the importance of good breathing for peak health and longevity. Sadly, a number of factors have kept this information from entering the mainstream of medical practice. First of all, studies that focus on wellness are still not the primary focus of most medical training, which concentrates on illness and pathological factors. In addition, those things that can't be patented--such as breathing--don't typically invite research funding. And without considerable research, information doesn't gain admittance into medical journals. Furthermore, a good source of hard medical data about breathing has also been limited due to the reduction of autopsy rates, which diminished from 40% in 1940 to 15% in 1999. By gauging the deterioration of a person's diaphragm, autopsies can give us valuable information about the relationship between breathing and health. Here, however, are excerpts from some studies of interest to all who'd like to breathe--and live--more fully. They show us the way to opening our minds in this crucial area of health and well-being. Mounting Evidence Clinical studies including thousands of participants spanning a 30-year period offer persuasive evidence that the most significant factor in health and longevity is how well you breathe. REMINDER: Most of scientific research is and was done with rats
and primates who do not breathe the same as humans. Researchers
did not seem to believe at that time that one could improve one's
breathing. Many still do not believe one can improve one's
breathing. This is simply not true.
Lung Function May Predict Long Life Or Early Death. How well
your lungs function may predict how long you live. This
finding is the result of a nearly 30-year follow-up of the
association between impaired pulmonary function and all causes of
mortality, conducted by researchers at the University at Buffalo.
Results of the study appear in the September issue of
Chest.
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the
association between pulmonary function and mortality for periods
that extended past 25 years, the limit of previous studies. Dr.
Schunemann and colleagues also wanted to determine for how long
pulmonary function is a significant predictor of mortality.
Results showed that lung function was a significant predictor of
longevity in the whole group for the full 29 years of follow-up.
"It is important to note that the risk of death was increased for
participants with moderately impaired lung function, not merely
those in the lowest quintile," Dr. Schunemann said. "This suggests
that the increased risk isn't confined to a small fraction of the
population with severely impaired lung function." The reasons lung
function may predict mortality are not clear, Dr. Schunemann said,
noting that increased risk is found in persons who never smoked,
as well as among smokers. "The lung is a primary defense organism
against environmental toxins. It could be that impaired pulmonary
function could lead to decreased tolerance against these toxins.
Researchers also have speculated that decreased pulmonary function
could underlie an increase in oxidative stress from free radicals,
and we know that oxidative stress plays a role in the development
of many diseases." Dr. Schunemann said the fact that a
relationship does exists between lung function and risk of death
should motivate physicians to screen patients for pulmonary
function, even if more research is needed to determine why. "It is
surprising that this simple measurement has not gained more
importance as a general health assessment tool," he noted. From
Mike: "Surprising" puts it mildly! Schunemann HJ, Dorn J, Grant
BJB, Winkelstein W, Jr., Trevisan M. Pulmonary Function Is a
Long-term Predictor of Mortality in the General Population 29-Year
Follow-up of the Buffalo Health Study. Chest 2000;118(3)656-664.
This study shows the importance of longitudinal studies as
opposed to cross sectional ones." This published article focused
on a compilation of 83 published reports and clinical studies
showing clearly that the primary measurement for lung function
(FEV1) is based on cross sectional data instead of longitudinal
data. This means essentially that they include sick people with
widely diverse circumstances in their statistics and compile
everyone's data for mass diagnosis. This 1997 research paper
points out that, "from one low measurement of FEV1 (forced
exhalation volume) in an adult, it is impossible to determine
whether the reduced lung function is due to not having achieved a
high maximum during early adulthood, or to having an accelerated
rate of decline or to any combination of these." "Western medical
studies, via cross sectioning, continue to look for role modeling
epidemiological "norms" that include the ranks of the ill. Cross
sectioning is 60% effective and proven by many to be ineffective
over the last 40 years." The health professional's opinion can
have immense personal, social, legal, and economic consequences.
When it is based on information colored by sick or otherwise
non-optimum healthy or inappropriately chosen individuals, the
statistic(s) become weighted in favor of, or excessively
influenced by, illness or what is perceived as illness, and may
well be in reality, simple mechanical dysfunction. Cross sectional
studies can bring the averages down and cause many who do not need
the intensity, duration or style of treatment recommended by many
health practitioners to be over or under medicated, or
inappropriately fed, exercised, massaged or educated. From Mike: We need to focus on how to improve breathing, not on
how it became impaired. Dwelling too much on problems and
pathology gets in the way of creativity and flexibility.
Some studies addressed in the book are:
He graphed much of his research. Other cofactors that influence
lung volume are airways hyper-responsiveness, atopy, childhood
respiratory infections, air pollution, posture, subluxation of the
spine, exercise, deep and superficial fascia, nutrition,
occupational hazards, abuse and trauma, attitude, and age, height,
weight and sex. The Manfred von Ardenne studies are best obtained by getting
his book called Oxygen Multistep Therapy. His material is good but
remains primarily within the illness model instead of the wellness
model.
For more breathing-relevant studies in a free newsletter or
to take the free breathing self tests and see how you compare to
others, access www.breathing.com/tests.htm
|
