Talk:Buteyko method/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some updates - input?

Well, it's been over a year since the last post on here and I'm thinking of giving this page another big update. Several clinical trials and developments have happened over the last year or so and some of these old Russian references are really confusing and unneeded.

I would also like a picture of someone practicing Buteyko and some good pictures of Professor Buteyko himself.

Thinking about it, I don't really like having Professor Buteyko's life story on this page. The article isn't be about him, it is about the actual Buteyko method. I don't mind having a brief history section on the origins of the method but not the Professor.

In any case, I think the Professor should have his own article, but citations would be needed for it. It would help to have citations for the one that is currently listed!

I would also like to put in a small section about how Buteyko is functioning in different parts of the world - who is running what organizations, where they are / size etc. I know there are some big organized groups in the UK and Australia but I don't know much about the Russian situation or what is going on in the rest of the world. Thoughts? Spathi (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Marred by outside interference from Buteyko groups"

The statement that the study was "marred by outside interference from Buteyko groups" sounds like folks were purposely interfering to affect the results, rather than (I gather) the study being (accidentally) set up in a way that resulted in different procedures in place for the two (treatment and control) groups.

The intent is important, because in terms of interpretation, the original description has Buteyko perhaps being dodgy, and practitioners being unscientific (and hence, Buteyko being a psuedo-science). The second original description is of a simple clerical error, the experiment wasn't set up precisely enough.

Can someone think of some better wording? Lizard1959 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Professor Buteyko

The Professor Konstantin Buteyko article is back up. Hence I removed the messy "history" section from this article and also re-wrote some bits of the Buteyko article and put some pictures of him in that. It's possible he could have more of a mention in this article, as in a "history of the method section" - maybe even a picture - but we dont need to tell his life story in this article. Spathi (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep you up to date Spathi, I have been in contact with the Buteyko Biographer Sergey Altukhov over the last two years and have been financing the translation of his written work, examples can be seen on the following links Doctor Buteyko's Discovery Trilogy by Sergey Altukhov, 150 Diseases of Deep Breathing and the Buteyko Breathing Charts and excerpts from the Buteyko trilogy Alexspence (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Continuing the update, the original Buteyko Breathing Exercises Alexspence (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) more information published on Knol ISBN 5-88563-072-0 The Buteyko theory about a key role of breathing for human health by Vladimir K. Buteyko and Marina M. Buteyko Alexspence (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some work on the article - based on the new BTS guidelines

Copied from my discussion on the Talk:Asthma page:

The British Thoracic Society (who make the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma and are quite an authority) have now recommended Buteyko in the Guideline. This actually gives permission for GPs and doctors in Britain to recommend it to their patients. Here's some recent news coverage from the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health: http://www.fih.org.uk/news/buteyko_technique.html And here's a quote from the above article: "Up until now conventional medicine took the stance that that there was insufficient evidence to recommend Buteyko Technique. However in May 2008 the updated British Guidelines for the Management of Asthma endorsed Buteyko Technique so that GPs and asthma nurses can now recommend it. The new guidelines grade the research on Buteyko as a 'B' classification - indicating that there are high quality clinical trials supporting the efficacy of the therapy in reducing both asthma symptoms and bronchiodilator usage. No other complementary therapy has been endorsed by this body for the treatment of asthma." Yes, I noticed that they spelled 'bronchodilator' wrong so this might need to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, quite a glowing report from a well-respected organisation. Here's a link to the latest BTS guidelines: http://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/Portals/0/Clinical%20Information/Asthma/Guidelines/asthma_final2008.pdf The bit on Buteyko is on page 35, section 3.5.3. They quote 5 clinical trials I think.

Basically what this means is that Buteyko finally has endorsement from a recognised body, so this article can be written in a more formal style - quoting the BTS guidelines and using only the references that they use. I want to first get all this old Russian stuff out and avoid quoting books or anything like that where possible.

I've also been thinking about mentioning any professional bodies, but as far as I can see there doesn't seem to yet be one "unifying" body that meets guidelines. Perhaps this is because Buteyko is taught sparsely by a number of different people all over the world. See the requirements list at: http://www.fih.org.uk/document.rm?id=50

Spathi (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-edited the introduction to the above effect. I may have made errors, so if anyone wishes to discuss or adjust the changes, please do so. Spathi (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

some citation for nasal breathing

I have a citation for nasal breathing where the wiki page has the 'citation needed' tag.

a book i've been reading 'Beathing Free' by Teresa Hale has several references to nasal breathing which back up the claim in the wiki page.

reason why i'm writing here is because i don't know how to add the citation etc...

hoping someone can help.

cheers,

trev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To add a reference, edit the article and replace the 'citation needed' tag with -

 <ref> info </ref> 

where info should be as complete as possible, eg. Book title, Author, ISBN, etc. It will appear exactly as its written, in the list of references at the bottom of the article. Logicman1966 (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Try not to do heavy-handed edits without discussion

I reverted some edits today by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artour2006, who has attempted to heavy-handedly edit this article previously.

I am not averse to editing the article - (quite the opposite!) - but the introduction needs to be kept tidy, concise, and readable. I do not want to fill it with uncited incomprehensible jargon, so keep things citation-driven and simple, while maintaining a firm neutral point of view.

Changes to the body of the article are probably more urgent, as well as finding a more decisive source from which to cite the body of the article (perhaps the BTS guidelines or something) but this article is already poorly cited enough as it is.

Artour - I appreciate your desire to change things, but please post here to chat about changes, rather than just blindly editing. Your writing is not entirely lost - and can still be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buteyko_method&oldid=296262612

--Spathi (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The Buteyko method, as it was invented and as it is practiced, was and is about treatment of over-breathing or chronic hyperventilation. This is how any MD or Buteyko practitioner explain and teach it. It is only due to medical trails on asthmatics, it became known for treatment of asthma. Russian MDs had medical trails with heart patients, liver cirhosis, radiation disease, etc. The deifinition of the method is about how its authors and users undertsand it. If it is suscessful or not is another issue. Artour2006 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Artour - As far as I know, the only modern clinical trials that have studied Buteyko have studied it for the treatment of asthma, so it is not wrong to write that it is used "primarily for the treatment of asthma" these days!

Remember that the first few paragraphs, above the main body of the article, are an introduction for non-experts - so please save complex science and theory like this for the main body of the article, which still needs a lot of work! Remember to put in sources for all your assertions too.

I will probably be updating some lower parts of the article in a week or two. There are still new clinical trials being done on Buteyko so I want to add something about this one for example: Cowie RL et al Respir. Med. May 2008 102(5):726‐732

--Spathi (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Spathi, Thank you for your job related to these webpages.

The idea of the method is known for anybody who taught or practiced it, including dozens of Western physicians: to breathe less, while all biochemical discussions are revolving about one chemical: CO2. Hence, it is rather simple it is about breathing more or less, hypoventilation, hyperventilation, both acute and chronic, and about norms for breathing.

It looks unscientific when the topic starts with the Buteyko method as a treatment for asthma, while over 70% of references, see the titles, are about hyperventilation and CO2 with no reference to asthma. In fact, Buteyko himself had more publications on heart disease, hypertension, tone of blood vessels, and other asthma-irrelevant effects.

Hence, the introduction should be kept clear and simple: The Buteyko method or Buteyko Breathing Technique is a holistic health philosophy, primarily to reverse the Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome.... Which trials were conducted, as well as their results, good or bad, can have a separate entry. I translated other Russian trials, beyond asthma, on hypertension and angina pectoris, rhinitis, chronic tonsillitis, radiation disease, hepatitis and liver cirrhosis. Only Western trials get focused, so far, on asthma.

The definition should not introduce any value system either. Maybe Chronic Hyperventilation is good. But the method is about reversing hyperventilation or hypocapnia only. It is science, not emotions.

Again, look at the titles below the Buteyko method page, Western references as well, to see what the method is about. Artour2006 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions for Buteyko page:

As a long time Buteyko student and biomedical engineer I would like to make the following comments:

1. The Russian citations are actually quite important. There may well be people from eastern bloc countries (such as Artour) who are reading this article and who are able to access this material. There is parallel science universe out there and I guess it would be pretty arrogant of us to think that ours is the only legitimate one. 2. Citations specifically on Buteyko’s work are difficult to get. The work was done behind the iron curtain. It was also filled with politics and intrigue. I’ve heard it said that only useless scientific work was allowed to flow out to the west. 3. At the time it emerged in the west from behind the iron curtain, there were absolutely no references to the method in the western scientific or medical literature. Yet thanks to the people who tried it in spite of this lack of scientific evidence, pressure was created to generate scientific material and now, nearly 20 years later, it is starting to get recognition in mainstream medicine. For this reason we need to cut the Buteyko proponents some slack when it comes to pressure to cite. 4. I have a number of pictures of Professor Buteyko I am happy to share. There is no copyright on these pictures as I took them myself. Perhaps someone can contact me privately to discuss posting them on wikipedia.

Now here are some things I still object to in the main article:

In paragraph 2: “These conditions are associated with disrupted or irregular breathing patterns and the Buteyko exercises aim to 'retrain' breathing to restore a natural pattern, akin to certain forms of Yoga.” The Buteyko exercises are aimed to reduce the amount of air we breathe in order to raise the baseline level of carbon dioxide. Disrupted and irregular breathing patterns are symptoms of chronic hyperventilation. . The reason for this is likely to be the low bicarbonate that is an essential element of chronic hyperventilation. Bicarbonate is the body’s pH buffer and therefore acts as a kind of biochemical flywheel to breathing.[CO2 fluctuates wildly in hyperventilation ] The point is that the Buteyko method specifically addresses the problem of over-breathing, and that efforts to smooth out irregular breathing are not part of normal Buteyko practice.

Under Theory, paragraph 3: Sedentary first world life-style increases chronic hyperventilation and hence according to the HV theory of asthma, would be one of the factors that increase asthma.

References to Nitric Oxide should be left out completely. The proponents of this mechanism have never presented a coherent theory on it, and to the best of my knowledge, have dropped it completely. I understand it to be an attempt to sex up the CO2 theory.

References to peak flow (PEF) and FEV1: Based on the hyperventilation theory of asthma, these are not valid measures of asthma as a disease since they require a hyperventilation manoeuvre to perform the measurement. This is just basic measurement science and common sense. You cannot use a measurement technique if that technique causes a change in the thing you are trying to measure. Research has shown that a single deep breath of the type taken to perform these tests reduces peripheral airway resistance by 70% in asthmatics. , The Buteyko theory makes them irrelevant, since bronchoconstriction is not seen as a disease at all, but a natural mechanism to regulate flow through the lungs. Asthmatics are genetically predisposed to performing this function particularly well.

Finally, the last sentence in the fourth paragraph under “Bowler et al” should be scrapped. McHugh specifically performed his trial to eliminate the possible influences from outside sources.

Peter Kolb Peter Kolb (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Artour and Peter - it's exciting to finally get some discussions from the experts going on here.

From a wikipedian point of view, the fact is that modern clinical evidence says Buteyko works for asthma - so I think that the how and why Buteyko works have take a back seat here. Therefore I’ve moved the theory section down to the bottom for now and moved the method section up. I think this section needs pretty heavy editing and citing – please go ahead!! I got most of this from Patrick McKeown’s book so I’m sure it’s not perfect.

Artour - I am perhaps only speaking for myself here, but in my experience Buteyko is almost entirely used for the treatment of asthma and closely-related illnesses. Perhaps Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome (CHS) is the mechanism through which this is working - but is there any western clinical evidence that CHS causes asthma? The wikipedia article on Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome doesn't even mention asthma!!

There are so many symptoms that chronic hyperventilation can give rise to, that it is not possible to list them all exhaustively. I have at least five references that include asthma on the list of symptoms. It is worthy of note that asthma is mentioned so little, yet the results of attempting to reverse chronic hyperventilation are so spectacularly successful for asthma. Peter Kolb (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter - I'm not sure I agree with you that the Russian studies are that important when there are plenty of modern clinical trials out there that comply with all the modern (e.g. double blind randomized) rules and regulations! We simply don't need to worry about the Russian texts! There is no need to write out the entire history of Buteyko on wikipedia (well, perhaps under the Professor_Konstantin_Buteyko article which needs a whole heap of work!!) - instead only what is relevant and important for people to know about the subject today.

I do agree with a lot of your points though. I'm going to seriously streamline the Clinical Trials section and do want some mention of the original Russian stuff, what is there, what it shows, what is useful! At the moment they are sitting on the page like a useless frog. I agree that the Bowler stuff needs to be cleaned up too. I agree that we need to be careful with what we say about other stuff like Nitric Oxide and CO2.

Hopefully you can help out with re-writing the theory section. If you just go ahead and paste things in here and include the references, I can handle the formatting of it for you and glue it all into the article!

--Spathi (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more work done today

I cleaned up the references dramatically today and made some more big edits. Several important papers werent even referenced, and several were double or tripled up - so I could significantly cut down the references to a sensible amount! I removed the 30-long russian bibliography because its not capable of being properly linked up with PMID references. Instead of having those we can just link to the Kazarinov VA paper anyway.

I have yet to find a home for the following references: (but hopefully will do so when I overhaul the clinical studies section)

• McGowan J, "Health Education: Does the Buteyko Institute Method make a difference?", Thorax, VOL 58/Sup3, December 2003, p28

* Opat AJ, Cohen MM, Bailey MJ, Abramson MJ, "A Clinical Trial of the Buteyko Breathing Technique in Asthma as Taught by Video", J. of Asthma, VOL 37(7), 2000, 557-564 done

--Spathi (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And even more work this afternoon - I have chopped out most of the rubbish that was filling up the clinical trials section and the article is looking much cleaner now! Each clinical trial really only deserves a single line or two showing the results. It's far from perfect at the moment, but I have spent a long time getting all the references correct, correctly formatted and correctly linked, so now they are there it should be relatively easy to just adjust the section to make it read more cleanly.

--Spathi (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new introduction.

I'd like to start by recommending a new introduction that reflects more accurately what the Buteyko method is really about. I would recommend the first two paragraphs be replaced as follows: (the third paragraph is OK)

The Buteyko method or Buteyko Breathing Technique is an education program aimed at teaching sufferers of chronic disease how to breathe less air. It is based on a holistic health philosophy that sees many chronic diseases, such as all forms of asthma, to be caused by habitually over breathing. The theory holds that breathing too much is the result mainly of stress and a sedentary lifestyle. The method includes a set of breathing exercises developed by the late Russian doctor Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko (Russian: Бутейко). It is taught as a complementary therapy and several small clinical trials have shown that it can safely reduce asthma symptoms and the need for reliever medication in some people, as well as increasing quality of life scores.[1][2] However, improvement takes time and commitment, requiring daily exercises over a period of weeks or months.

The Buteyko method provides breathing exercises that focus on nasal-breathing, diaphragmatic breathing accompanied by relaxation, and breath-holding. At present it is used mainly for asthma, sleep apnea, snoring, anxiety attacks and panic attacks. [NB.: Note: (Aside) The Buteyko method is a health education program and not a treatment.]

Peter Kolb (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Theory.....

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is about Buteyko and the Buteyko method, not about Asthma. Here is the suggested theoretical basis of the method:

Theory

Chronic Hyperventilation has been discussed in the medical literature for most of the last century. In fact, DaCosta is thought to have been the first to describe some of the symptoms in 1871, following a bizarre symptoms complex (including chronic fatigue) he found in soldiers during the American civil war[10]. However, he did not associate these symptoms with over breathing at that time. It was Goldman who discovered in 1922 that all of the symptoms, listed by DaCosta, were associated with involuntary hyperventilation. [10]

In spite of the long history and many pages that have been written on the condition, chronic hyperventilation is hardly ever diagnosed by doctors.[1],[12],[11],[9]

Chronic hyperventilation develops from any chronic, un-discharged stress on the body including elements of western lifestyle, leading to a depletion of carbon dioxide (CO2) and bicarbonate (HCO3-). [8],[9]

The respiratory center, situated in the brain stem, paces breathing in order to maintain pH. [5] according to the Henderson-Hasselbach equation:

pH = 6.1 – log{0.03[CO2]/[HCO3-]}

Hence, to maintain pH, the ratio of CO2 to bicarbonate in the cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) needs to remain constant. Since the blood-brain barrier is extremely permeable to CO2, this is readily accomplished by regulation of breathing.[5] If the body is stressed, breathing increases, CO2 is reduced and a state of alkalosis develops. If this stress is sustained, the kidneys compensate by dumping bicarbonate in order to reestablish normal pH in the blood. [5],[9]. However, the blood brain barrier is only very slightly permeable to bicarbonate resulting in a very slow diffusion of bicarbonate from the CSF into the blood[5] if the stress is sustained for a very long time (chronic stress). When the stress eventually dissipates, the CSF is left with a low bicarbonate concentration.[5],[9] To maintain pH the CO2 will also have to be kept low and a habituation to low CO2 will have taken place.[8] The resulting low CO2 and bicarbonate results in a profound derangement of normal body chemistry. [3],[8],[9],[11], [12]

Cardiologist, Claude Lum, said that chronic hyperventilation “presents a collection of bizarre and often apparently unrelated symptoms which may affect any part of the body, and any organ or any system…… for we are dealing with a profound biochemical disturbance, which is as real as hypoglycemia, and more far-reaching in its effects.”[9]

From the Buteyko perspective, the inflammatory hyperresponsiveness and allergic hyper reactivity seen in asthma and bronchitis are the results of immune disturbances caused by chronic hyperventilation because of these biochemical derangements.[8]

The second component of asthma, bronchospasm, is easier to understand from a teleological perspective. There is clearly a reason for the existence of the smooth muscle in the walls of the bronchioles. Their role is to optimize ventilation of the lungs so that over ventilated airways (low CO2) can be constricted and under ventilated airways can be dilated. Carbon dioxide is a known muscle relaxant. One of the well known symptoms in acute hyperventilation is carpopedal spasm, a condition in which the skeletal muscles of fingers and toes go into spasm. Smooth muscle in the walls of some arteries and bronchioles is affected too, by low carbon dioxide. The smooth muscle in the blood vessels going to the brain contract during hyperventilation eventually leading to fainting. Blood flow to the brain is reduced by 2% for every 1mm Hg reduction in arterial CO2 tension.[12][13]

The mechanism behind smooth muscle spasm is thought to be as follows: Carbon dioxide is involved in the transport of Calcium across the cell walls. During hyperventilation calcium is re-distributed through the tissues, depleting the extra-cellular fluid and accumulating inside the cells. Thus trapped, it is unable to participate in the process of relaxing the smooth muscle, which then remains in spasm.[6]

In people with a genetic predisposition to asthma, over breathing is known to cause bronchospasm. [2],[3],[7],[9], [12] In fact, in asthmatics even a single deep breath of the kind taken for performing lung function tests, airway resistance is increased by 71% while arterial carbon dioxide tension is reduced by 7 to 16mmHg.[4] It follows that PEF and FEV1 lung function tests are not appropriate tests for testing asthmatics, because the testing procedure alters the quantity being measured.

There are many other effects of hyperventilation on the body. One of the most significant is poor oxygenation of the cells. Apart from constriction of blood vessels causing a reduction in blood flow, low CO2 increases the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen. This is know as the Bohr effect, and results in the hemoglobin not offloading its oxygen where it is needed,[2],[3],[12],[11] returning back to the lungs on a wasted trip. This is the cause of breathlessness and leads to more breathing, aggravating an already serious situation.

So How does Buteyko therapy work?

Buteyko therapy is a simple educational program aimed at reversing chronic hyperventilation. In the same way as chronic stress leads to chronic hyperventilation, so too a deliberate reduction in breathing over a period of time reverses this process to restore CO2 back to a normal level.

References:

1. Bass C, "The hyperventilation syndrome", Respiratory Diseases in Practice, Oct/Nov 1990, 13-16

2. Cluff RA, "Chronic Hyperventilation and its treatment by physiotherapy: discussion paper", J of the Royal Society of Medicine, VOL 77, September 1984, 855-861

3. Demeter SL, Cordasco EM, "Hyperventilation syndrome and asthma", The American Journal of Medicine, VOL 81, December 1986, 989-994

4. Gayrard P, Orhek J, Grimaud C, Charpin J, "Bronchoconstrictor effects of deep inspiration in patients with asthma", Am Rev Respir Dis, VOL 111, 1975, 433-439

5. Guyton AC, Hall JE, "Textbook of medical physiology", Chemical control of respiration, PUBLISHER: WB Saunders; ISBN:0-7216-5944-6; 1996; EDITION: 9; PAGES: 527-528.

6. Guyton (as above). Smooth Muscle Contraction, PAGE 98

7. Hibbert GA, Pilsbury DJ, "Demonstration and Treatment of Hyperventilation Causing Asthma", British J. of Psychiatry, VOL 153, 1988, 687-689

8. Kazarinov VA, "Buteyko Method: The experience of implementation in medical practice", The biochemical basis of KP Buteyko's theory of the diseases of deep respiration, EDITOR: Buteyko KP; PUBLISHER: Patriot Press Moscow; 1990; PAGES: 198-218. Translation available from http://www.members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/biochem.htm

9. Lum LC, "Hyperventilation: The tip and the iceberg", J Psychosom Res, VOL 19, 1975, 375-383. Available from http://www.members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/Lum.htm

10. Magarian GJ, "Hyperventilation syndrome: infrequently recognized common expressions of anxiety and stress.", Medicine, VOL 61, 1982, 219-36

11. Magarian GJ, Middaugh DA, Linz DH, "Hyperventilation Syndrome: a diagnosis begging for recognition", West J Med, VOL 138, 1983, 733-736. Available from http://www.members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/Magarian.htm

12. Sher TH, "Recurrent chest tightness in a 28-year-old woman", Annals of allergy, VOL 67, September 1991, 310-314

13. Waites TF, "Hyperventilation - chronic and acute", Arch Intern Med, VOL 138, 1978, 1700-1701

Peter Kolb (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

new theory section is in

The new theory section is in, based on what was written above ^^. I am far from an expert - and it probably needs reviewing and editing by one - but I've programmed all the references in properly and it should be pretty easy to perform edits without breaking anything! So go ahead!

All the other sections also need edits, especially linking to other wikipedia pages. I'm gonna take a look at the introduction next, as it seems that wants to be changed too. --Spathi (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

theory section adjustments to include asthma

Having thought about it more - I would like to keep the article firmly pointed towards the viewpoint of Buteyko being good for asthma - therefore explaining things from a more asthma viewpoint. Might make some edits later on if I have some free time. --Spathi (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Buteyko method is about treatment of chronic hyperventilation

Thank you, Peter and Spathi for recent updates. I agree with Peter that the Buteyko method is about reversal of CHV (Chronic Hyperventilation). Spathi asked me if there are any studies that linked CHV and asthma.

Medical norm for breathing at rest is 6 liters of air for 1 minute for a 70-kg man (in physiological textbooks worldwide)

McFadden ER & Lyons HA, Arterial-blood gases in asthma, The New Engl J of Med 1968 May 9, 278 (19): 1027-1032. Asthmatics: 12 l/min; Prevalence of hyperventilation: 100%

Johnson BD, Scanlon PD, Beck KC, Regulation of ventilatory capacity during exercise in asthmatics, J Appl Physiol. 1995 Sep; 79(3): 892-901. Asthmatics: 15 l/min; Prevalence of hyperventilation: 100%

Bowler SD, Green A, Mitchell CA, Buteyko breathing techniques in asthma: a blinded randomised controlled trial, Med J of Australia 1998; 169: 575-578. Asthmatics: 14.1 (±5.7) l/min; Prevalence of hyperventilation: 100%

The second paragraph of the introduction says “At the core of the Buteyko method is a series of breathing exercises that focus on nasal-breathing, breath-holding and relaxation.” This is not right, as any Russian MD, practicing the method will testify. It is about breathing less (see Buteyko’s quote below).

The introduction (Buteyko is primarily for asthma) now looks like nonsense since 1) the first section after the introduction now has the title “Reduced Breathing Exercises” (why do we need breathing less for asthmatics, if we did not explain the asthma-CHV link?); 2) any practitioner and any learner will confirm that the method is about breathing less; 3) Buteyko, in his interview, published in Russian (Buteyko method: Its application in medical practice, ed. by K.P. Buteyko, 2-nd ed., 1991, Titul, Odessa) said,

Question: What-s the quintessence of your method? Answer: Our method is the antipode of the conventional one. They say "breathe deeply", we say “breathe less, and not so deeply”.

This interview can be found on Peter’s website too: www.members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/but_intv.pdf

It is great that Spathi, according to his page, “assists in the day-to-day running of an asthma charity”, but it does not mean that the whole world revolves around asthma. Peter also has website devoted to asthma but he knows what Buteyko is for. This is science (medicine and physiology), not emotions and dreams. Hence, the first sentence should start with “for treatment of chronic hyperventilation” and later sentences can describe health conditions, trials, results, success, if any, etc. Now the introduction, with focus on asthma, is confusing and misleading. (Artour2006 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)).

I edited the introduction. Asthma is left as the main known application of the method, but reversal of the CHV is included as the main goal of the Buteyko therapy. Otherwise, the introduction did not make sense. Artour2006 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Artour2006 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated the intro

Thanks for making changes to the intro Artour - but the top section needs to be kept as simple as possible so I have made a few adjustments. It is important that the intro is kept super-simple so that people without medical expertise can get a good understanding of what Buteyko is in ordinary language!

Imagine, for example, if the article were about a drug. The intro would not go into detailed information about how the drug interacts with enzymes or chemicals in the body! That stuff would be only included for experts and put much further down the article in the theory section, although maybe this section could be instead called "Mode of Action". --Spathi (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it called a "complementary therapy"

Why is this method described as a complementary therapy (which links to the article on alternative medicine) on this page? In what way does it "not fall within the realm of conventional medicine" (definition of alternative medicine in that article)? You could essentially call it a form of physiotherapy. This method seems to be supported by clinical trials. If it has a 'B' classification in the UK, then is it not evidence based medicine? It was even invented by a doctor (not that that by itself has any importance). KBry (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Should probably rectify this. --Spathi (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Improvements in asthma control in control group (Cowie study)

There have been recent modifications to the article that I find very disturbing. In particular I want to address the following quote: "The most recent trial, conducted in Canada in 2008, took 129 patients with asthma and randomised them to receive a set of breathing exercises from either a Buteyko practitioner or a chest physiotherapist. The Buteyko group showed no statistically significant increase in asthma control compared to placebo"

The person who introduced this change probably has no insight into what happened in this study. I attended a lecture give by Prof. Cowie on this study. It was clear from what he said during question time, that the person running the control group, who knew absolutely nothing about the Buteyko method, actually included significant Buteyko like exercises. Hypoventilation exercises were specifically excluded in the Brisbane trial, and that is why the differences between control and main groups were so starkly different.

It is not difficult to stumble across the kinds of exercises that actually are helpful to patients when you are a skilled teacher interested in this kind of healing, even if you don't fully understand it.

Peter Kolb (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Buteyko method is about treatment of alveolar hypocapnia, not arterial CO2. Check any original Russian sources. The reference to COPD with arterial hypercapnia is pathetic. Hence, the table with minute ventilation is surely relevant. Practically, it is about breathing LESS in terms of minute ventilation. (Artour2006 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)) (Artour2006 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

More undiscussed changes

Looks like this article needs a lot of work again thanks to people not following the rules. If you are going to edit this article I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ATPA

Very basically, it describes the fact that articles should be readable and coherant, not filled with strange confusing tables right from the very start. People with zero understanding of what Buteyko is should not be confronted with complex scientific jargon right off the bat.

I will make some major changes to improve this article shortly, and strongly request that people post here with suggestions of what needs to be changed before making changes.

--Spathi (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spathi (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Criticism Section

It seems strange that there is no section discussing criticism of the method and/or studies. NPOV problem? Peno Malaputo (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to article is still wrong!

It is very frustrating for those of us who have studied the Buteyko method for many years, to have the article hijacked by well meaning people who have never really studied it and really don't understand it.

The Buteyko method is fundamentally about teaching people to reverse chronic hyperventilation. It isn't really a method at all, as Sasha Stalmatski points out in one of his many you-tube appearances. It is really an understanding that chronic hyperventilation is ultimately the cause of many health problems, and learning to reverse it will fix those problems. In fact different practitioners have different approaches to teaching this process, but all have one thing in common - they are all aimed at reversing chronic hyperventilation. If they are not aimed at reversing chronic hyperventilation then they are not teaching Buteyko.

The Buteyko method has now been trialled quite extensively in the west for its effectiveness on asthma. The uncomfortable conclusion you would have to come to is that if Buteyko is effective on asthma, then the cause of asthma is likely to be chronic hyperventilation. Maybe this is the reason we can't seem to be getting past this point in the Wikipedia article.

If someone would like to contact me directly at (pkolb@westnet.com.au), maybe we can put our heads together to get this introduction right in a way that is acceptable to everyone.

On a side issue, I have several pictures that I made and own, made with the permission of Dr. Buteyko, that I would gladly give to Wikipedia for this article. I have tried several times to upload them, but I got caught up in a complex never ending circle of links in a process that is way too complex for me! So if you have any expertise in doing this, please get back to me. Peter Kolb (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you say that it has "been trialled quite extensively in the west for its effectiveness on asthma". Do you have some sources that would pass WP:MEDRS we could look at? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Brangifer. See references 1,2,3,(4),7,11,12,14 in the main article.Peter Kolb (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, Brangifer, it didn't take you long to jump down my throat. I understand that the 1800's is 19th Century. Although DaCosta first described the condition in 1872 in the American Journal of Medicine, he never worked out what the cause of the condition was. It was only in the early 1900's around 1918, that chronic hyperventilation as a cause of DaCosta's syndrome was explained by Goldman, Lewis and many others working in this field. The work continued and is still continuing to this day. Just have a look at all the references, all from 20th and 21'st centuries. So the answer is that it is the 20 century and not the 19th century. Peter Kolb (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter. That was certainly not my intention. Your explanation makes perfect sense, so good catch. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead

Can I propose the following modest change to the introduction, which will keep me moderately happy. I have added one word to the introductory sentence: "The Buteyko method or Buteyko Breathing Technique is a practice MOSTLY used for the treatment of asthma." The truth is that I have heard from several practicing Buteyko practitioners that the bulk of their students do the training for sleep apnea and snoring, while they have a few for anxiety and panic attacks and some of the other chronic hyperventilation related conditions. Since the Buteyko method in reality is an education program aimed at reversing chronic hyperventilation, I think that it is a reasonable compromise. Peter Kolb (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Peter Kolb (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest changes to the article

I have made a couple of changes to the article.

1. Under the section on clinical trials, there were only ever two official "clinical approbations", or as we know it "Clinical Trials" held in Russia. I'm not sure where the number 35 came from. Probably someone added up all the references in the Kazarinov paper and took those references all to be clinical trials. The two aprobabations were discussed by Professor Buteyko in an interview he gave, I believe in the early 1990's. The article is widely available on many web sites around the net.

2. Under "Theory", almost all of the work done on chronic hyperventilation was in the 20th century, and not the 19th century as is evidenced from the references on chronic hyperventilation. Also, someone asked for a citation about how chronic stress leads to chronic hyperventilation. The whole object of this passage is to explain exactly how this habituation process works, it is well referenced and so the request for cites should never have been made. Peter Kolb (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Theory section

This entire section appears to be in violation of of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Of the sources I sampled, none of them speak of Buteyko method; any attempts to tie those concepts to Buteyko are violating our core principle against original research. We need a reliable source to make the connection; Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do so themselves. As such, I have deleted that section. Yobol (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/5/1808.full.pdf appears to be a good review of the theory that won't require OR. Yobol (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Other reviews for future reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12735667, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973966, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853868, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17870457 Yobol (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15115165, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14749604, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12422290. Yobol (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be the "offical" explanation by Buteyko; probably can be combined with the Chest article above to provide a backbone for a revamped "theory" section. Yobol (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, actually not so sure this is "official" - apparently there's a lot of back and forth from different groups claiming to be the "true" Buteyko practitioners/trainers; and one of the websites that claims to be the "true" one is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Amazing. Yobol (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yobol

This is pretty heavy handed and I'm finding it difficult to remain polite. Why could you not have discussed this first?

Buteyko did his work behind the iron curtain, mainly in the 50s and 60s. We did not have access to this material - the Russians were really good at hiding scientific work that was actually useful. But the work he did was based on exactly the same principles as you will find in the hyperventilation material, to which we have ready access. The western researchers would not have heard of Buteyko, so they would hardly have been in a position to reference him. But Buteyko certainly knew about some of their work and based his own work on the same principles. But the Russians took the work a little further. The exquisite biochemical explanation provided by Kazarinov attests to that. Buteyko's own successful drive to teach people to reduce their breathing was mirrored with limited success in the west. But the whole basis of Buteyko's work is 100% identical to the work of any of the hyperventilationists listed in our reference list of western medical literature. This is not my interpretation. This is fact. We have access in the west to medical literature that exactly explains the work done by Konstantin Buteyko, whose body of scientific literature is difficult for us to come by. Chronic hyperventilation may be a contentious issue in medicine, but whether it is researched in Russia or in the west, it is the same thing. It is about the health consequences of a chronic shortage of CO2 and bicarbonate.

You're out of your depth, Yobol, and it is a shame that wikipedia readers will be denied access to material that we have so painstakingly dug up for you, material that is difficult to come by. I'm frankly outraged and totally disillusioned with wikipedia that you can actually get away with this.Peter Kolb (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. That section, as written, was a clear violation of one of the policies of Wikipedia and needed to be removed. Now, there are plenty of reviews that discuss his theory (the Chest review I noted above appearing to be the best one) and we should use them. What we do not do is cobble together various sources, none of which speak of Buteyko, to come up with novel conclusions about Buteyko (like saying objective measures like peak flows and PFT parameters are not appropriate for testing asthmatics). Right or wrong, we are only supposed to summarize the conclusions as reached by reliable sources; we do not advance novel conclusions that our sources have not made, as was done in that section. Yobol (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter, you are the one out of your depth as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Information can be placed here, but only under certain conditions. Yobol is right and is just following policy. In fact he doesn't have to know a thing about Buteyko to still ensure that the article doesn't violate our policies. We aren't writing a private blog here. We're building an encyclopedia. We have nothing against including good information on this subject. It just has to be done properly. If the sources aren't available, well that's too bad. It really is, but that's not Wikipedia's or Yobol's fault so you need to be patient, calm down, and decide whether you wish to get this done or not. There is no time limit or rush. There is no excuse for you to attack Yobol in this manner and I suggest you strike those comments. If you do we'll take it as a sign of good will and not hold it against you. You're understandably frustrated, but you still need to control your outbursts or they'll come back to haunt you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Chest review. The conclusion is equivocal – it provides no useful information, not withstanding that it found nothing to contradict the hyperventilation theory. I should add that the research was done in standard western medical texts which have never provided a viable model for asthma. In contrast, the work done by Buteyko in Russia provided a rational model for asthma, one that when tested by applying the therapy that it spawned, appears on the face of it to be correct. The theory is the same theory that many western medical researchers have found to be the basis for disorders other than asthma, so there is nothing new in the basic theory. As has been reported many times in the western medical literature, chronic hyperventilation has been relegated to Cinderella status and is by and large ignored by doctors. Buteyko has re-ignited this very old debate with some spectacular results that must have surprised even the doctors doing the clinical trials. Now the question is, do the people turning to Wikipedia for information, deserve to read about the scientific theory behind this remarkable breakthrough in asthma control, or should they be told that it is all just magic. As far as those comments I directed at Yobol are concerned, I'm happy to let them stand. On the other hand I'm glad I was controlled enough at the time not to say what I really think. Now I want you both to know that I have spent huge numbers of hours researching this material and putting it together in a form that should make sense to other scientists and lay people alike. The material was all fully referenced. I hope you can find someone else that will provide a rational theoretical explanation for the success of the Buteyko method, maybe based on the Chest article, but I'm done with Wikipedia. I have nothing further to contribute and won't be returning to these pages again. I've totally wasted enough time on this useless exercise.Peter Kolb (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A look at multiple reviews of the clinical research (linked above by myself) shows that your claims of "remarkable breakthrough in asthma control" is decidedly overblown, and the fact that you recognize that "chronic hyperventilation" is not widely accepted in mainstream medical thought yet chose to promote it here violates another of Wikipedia's policies (WP:UNDUE). Should you choose to stay/return, Wikipedia would benefit from people who carefully research a subject, but you have to know that anyone who edits here has to follow Wikipedia's core policies. Good luck.Yobol (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter, this has nothing to do with "understanding the subject", but everything to do with violating our OR policy. That's why, especially in medical subjects, third party sources that have already synthesized the results found in primary sources must be used. Editors are not allowed to pick and choose from primary sources and then synthesize the results into a finished product. That's not allowed. You have to find third party sources that make every single one of the conclusions you'd like to use here. They also have to be sources that meet the quality required by our WP:MEDRS guideline. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bulrangifer and Yobol. I understand exactly what you're saying. You've made your point forcefully and clearly. The problem is that we are dealing with an issue that did not come from mainstream medicine, although it was developed from fundamental principles in mainstream medical physiology by a medical researcher who was also a medical practitioner. The theory challenges contemporary medical thinking. Yet you are asking the readers of Wikipedia to take this article that did not come from mainstream medicine and read it only through the prism of contemporary medical thinking. In other words, the originator of this theory does not get to explain to the readers of Wikipedia, the theory and medical context of his discovery. And there is evidence of a medical bias against Buteyko's work and Yobol got sucked right into it. For example, the results of the clinical trials are nothing short of sensational, to the point of embarrassment for some of the early researchers into Buteyko. Take for example the results of the first clinical trial by Bowler and Mitchell, two mainstream asthma specialists. They announced a significant reduction in the use of bronchodilators. This looks unimpressive if you just skim the conclusion of the article. But if you dig a little deeper, study the paper and do a bit of simple arithmetic on the published results, you realize that the reduction in bronchodilator usage by Buteyko patients was 96%. This is more than just statistically significant. In fact Professor Robert Cowie told us in a lecture he gave, that from the results he saw in his research into the effectiveness of Buteyko, that asthma control with Buteyko was better than with the best medicines medical science has to offer. (I have the lecture on DVD). My son is only one of many who no longer have asthma and no longer take medication thanks to Buteyko. So the development is very significant and I would urge you not to under state its place in medicine. I would also urge you to acknowledge that the rules need to have some flexibility to deal with this kind of special situation.Peter Kolb (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review our guidelines on how to select sources on medical subjects and policies on neutral point of view, paying special attention to the section on not placing undue weight on minority opinions. What that means is if "mainstream" medical opinion, as related by our secondary sources (reviews) do not hail Buteyko as the greatest thing for asthma, we don't either. And no, our policies are not "flexible" to promote medical treatments that our reviews do not say work. I would go so far as to say promotion of this method as "better than the best medicines" are fringe theories, and you would do well to read that guideline as well. Yobol (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the guidelines and recommend that you do the same. I disagree with your narrow interpretation of the guidelines. See for example the introductory statement "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It is clear from the guidelines that the chief concern is the misrepresentation of therapies and their promotion as being effective when there is a lack of significant reliable evidence in support. As one of the first paragraphs says, people will turn to Wikipedia for health advice. What Wikipedia wants to guard against is the misrepresentation of therapies that will encourage their use when they lack evidence of effectiveness. I saw nothing in the guidelines that prevents the theory behind a therapy being explained. The theory I presented on the discussion board and which a kindly editor added to the article some months later, explained the rationale behind the therapy and did nothing to project its effectiveness or otherwise. Cochrane and the British Guidelines on the management of asthma have already done that. By removing this theory section and replacing it with nothing, you have deprived the readers from getting an understanding of the topic they are exploring. The theory behind the Buteyko method is an essential part of the method and is explained to every patient undertaking it. I submit that no useful purpose was served in removing the theory section and that it did not violate your rules and particularly not the intent of your rules.Peter Kolb (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to review WP:SYNTH again if you don't see any problem with the section. I have no problem with a "Theory" section; indeed, it is necessary for a complete encyclopedia article. You just have to follow the guidelines/policies when doing so. Yobol (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to this article, Yobol. I have now read it, digested it and understood it and I suggest you do the same. If you're going to use Wikipedia rules to remove work produced by editors for Wikipedia you need to understand the rules, and I'm afraid in this case you have again applied the rules narrowly and out of context. This particular rule, one of the four pillars of Wikipedia, is to stop editors from combining result A with result B and coming up with a conclusion C in order to advance position C which neither A nor B support. This, indeed would be original research. Now, the theory section I provided for Wikipedia does not make any claims and does not seek to advance any position. It simply explains the theory behind the Buteyko method, a theory which is held by a significant minority of medical scientists whose work has been published in the mainstream medical literature. Significant minority views are permissible in Wikipedia. This theory section does not ask the reader to accept any conclusion. It simply explains the principles. It is permissible for editors to use multiple sources to paint a picture that all the sources would agree with. Take a look at the example given of Smith and Jones, where pieces of information from two sources have been synthesized into one, an example of acceptable synthesis. It is also permissible for experts to add their expertise because of familiarity with the literature. The rules specifically say: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature." Now the basis of the Buteyko method is the hyperventilation theory, and the sources I have referenced are in agreement about the hyperventilation theory. I have not come to any conclusion that is not supported by the source materials. In fact I have not produced any conclusion at all, just an explanation which can be traced back to the references I have provided. Yobol, my expertise is in Buteyko theory not Wikipedia rules. I should not have to explain to Wikipedia experts what they should already know and understand if they take it upon themselves to hack into articles produced by others. I recommend that you re-instate the theory section immediately. You have no grounds for having removed it in the first place. I have found nothing in the rules that justifies your actions. Peter Kolb (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it advances a novel conclusion; the whole point of the section is to describe how Buteyko works; except none of the sources I read actually mention Buteyko at all. It is a very clear violation of WP:SYNTH. I will not restore it as it violates our policies. I already suggested you use sources that do mention Buteyko to rewrite it. Short of that, in case you think my interpretation is wrong, you are welcome to follow the dispute resolution processes to get outside opinion. May I suggest posting to the original research noticeboard if you still have concerns my interpretation is wrong to get outside opinion? Yobol (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets just wrap this up with an overview because we're really not getting anywhere. In this particular case it would actually help if you understood the subject you are editing. In summary – 1. Since the 1950s Buteyko was a promoter of the chronic hyperventilation theory as an etiological factor in certain diseases, asthma being one of them. At this time the theory had already been established and had a small following in the medical community. 2. Buteyko developed a therapy to reverse chronic hyperventilation based on basic physiological principles. The therapy was apparently effective from the start but evolved further over the years. 3. Work on chronic hyperventilation went on in the west independently of Buteyko, who did his work in isolation in the former USSR. 4. The wikipedia article seeks to present information on Buteyko, but wikipedia editors will not allow the theory to be discussed. The theory is an essential element in any discussion about Buteyko. It may not end up being the correct explanation for how the method works, but that does not mean the theory on which the therapy is based should not be presented. The sources you quote give no insight into the Buteyko method. The theory on which the Buteyko method is based is not an arguable point. How it actually works you can argue, but you cannot argue about the theory that underlies the therapy. It is fact. I will apply for dispute resolution. I also look forward to seeing how you replace the theory section you deleted with your version, based on the articles you referred to. Peter Kolb (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

All well and good. Just find reliable sources that discuss Buteyko and it goes in. The ones used in the previous "Theory" section do not discuss Buteyko, so they can't be used. Simple. Otherwise we're going around in circles, and I don't like getting dizzy. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}

The following section is under serious dispute. Here is a summary of what it is about: Two hypothetical researchers A and B both write independently about King Henry VIII of England. C is now preparing an entry for Wikipedia on Henry VIII and wants to reference both the works of A and B..

A third party editor appears and says that C may not discuss both articles in the same context unless A has explicitly referenced B in his work, the argument being that they might not be discussing the same King Henry VIII of England. He argues that to do so constitutes violation of the rule on synthesis. The difficulty here is that C is insufficiently informed on the subject matter to know that there can only ever be one King Henry VIII of England. The editor clearly has to have at least this minimum knowledge about the subject matter to be able to intervene.

A similar situation has arisen in which a third party editor has removed the “theory” section from a wikipedia article on the grounds of violation of the rule on synthesis. The article deals with a therapy that has emerged from Russia. Well documented controlled clinical trials have given this therapy sufficient credibility for it to have now been recognized by all relevant health bodies in the United Kingdom. However, a complicating factor is that the literature is all in Russian. But what is clear from the Russian literature, from discussions with the founder of the therapy, from discussions with the Russian doctors who have been using this therapy and from participating in the therapy, is that the theoretical basis is identical with a theory that has been around in the western medical literature for almost all of the last century. In the west this theory has a Cinderella status with only a significant minority supporting it but a significant body of medical literature available to describe it. Most doctors, including those doing clinical trials on the Russian therapy, have never heard of it.

The theoretical principles on which this therapy is based were explained and fully referenced in the wikipedia article. The third party editor removed this explanation on the grounds that none of the western medical journal articles dealing with this theory, directly referenced the Russian material. It is safe to say that he has no understanding of this material, so he simply did a word search through the references on the name of the therapy, and when he found nothing that matched, he concluded that there was no link between the Russian therapy and the western medical literature.

It should be noted that only the “theory” section of the article is in dispute. This material was removed without discussion, on the grounds that “there is nothing to discuss” since it was a violation of the rule on synthesis. This caused a lot of anger and frustration, which is still simmering. The question is, were the rules on synthesis violated? Peter Kolb (talk)

Comment from an uninvolved editor

Hi; I came here to respond to your WP:3O request.
However, before I can give a good answer, there's one thing I'd like to clear up. Peter Kolb, you said that the method has "now been recognized by all relevant health bodies in the United Kingdom". On the other hand, you said that "the literature is all in Russian". This puzzles me; the NHS and NICE &c generally use English rather than Russian. Is there anything in English, from reasonably solid sources, which describes the theory? The article mentions several studies on the effectiveness of Buteyko, which were conducted in the anglosphere - do any of those studies describe the theory behind what they're testing?
On sources and languages, I'd like to point out that English-language sources are preferable but not compulsory. It's important to be very careful with medical claims as "reliable source" is not boolean. When discussing the effectiveness of a therapy, a systematic review is better than a single clinical study, which in turn is better than a monograph or letter to some journal, which is better than a blogpost, and so on - and if a medical claim isn't supported by a source near the top of that hierarchy, I would hesitate to put it in an article. Finding the highest-quality source would, to me, trump concerns about language - as long as we can get hold of a reliable translation.
Is this disagreement solely about the theory section, or does it touch on other parts of the article too?
Thanks - bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just came back to fix the template - I suddenly realized where I went wrong. Thanks for fixing that so quickly, Yobol and thank you, Bob Rayner, for jumping in so fast. The British Guidelines on the management of asthma is sponsored by NHS, British Thoracic Society, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Asthma UK, College of Emergency Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians. It states explicitly- “Buteyko breathing technique may be considered to help patients to control the symptoms of asthma.” There has been a subsequent addition that it does not improve lung function - which is of course predicted by the theory. They have come to this position because Cochrane has reviewed the literature, which consists almost exclusively of various clinical trials that have been held to test the therapy, much as you would test the effectiveness of a pill. Naturally all these clinical trials were held in the west and are written up in English. They acknowledge that hyperventilation is claimed to be the basis of Buteyko theory, but they all either dismiss it or say there is not enough evidence. But if you look at the Russian literature, and in particular the work of VA Kazarinov, it is clear that it is actually _chronic_ hyperventilation that is the problem, not just acute hyperventilation which we all know and understand. In his paper entitled "The biochemical basis of KP Buteyko's theory on the diseases of deep respiration," Kazarinov spelled out in great detail what the hyperventilationists have been saying for most of the last century. But he went further and demonstrated the link between chronic disease and chronic hyperventilation. I have a copy of the paper both in Russian and I also have a translation in English. Many years ago I tried to upload it onto my web site but had a lot of trouble with the biochemical formulae, such as the tricarboxylic acid cycle. So it is available in incomplete form, but if you want a full copy I'll happily make a photo copy of the original and send it to you. If you want the incomplete version see http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/biochem.htm . We have no idea whether that was ever published in a quality Russian medical journal. I would be surprised if it wasn't. I know sufficient biochemistry to be very impressed by this work. Buteyko's book that I referenced I also have a copy, a Russian copy and an incomplete English translation. It was a source of great surprise to me that none of the western researchers bothered to research the theory. On the other hand it is very likely that most of them would not be familiar even with the western body of literature on chronic hyperventilation, so they may not have realized that they've missed something. I also want to make the point that I was not discussing the effectiveness of the Buteyko method - just the theory. It is really irrelevant what quality judgment you make on the Russian material. What is important is that Buteyko started with a theory - whether it is right or wrong - and developed a therapy based on that theory. That theory needs to be explained. We are indeed very fortunate that there is such a great body of literature in the west on this very theory. Can I also point out that if you were to attend a Buteyko course and were already familiar with the Chronic hyperventilation theory, you would immediately recognize that the method is based on this theory. And finally, this disagreement is only about the inclusion of the theory section.Peter Kolb (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The current disagreement is only about the theory section, though I suspect that might change as I introduce new material from the reviews I note above. The Chest review article reasonably describes some of the Buteyko method, and I have listed a number of other reviews as well. I suspect that Peter Kolb just does not understand we do not cobble sources together (like 30 year old studies on hyperventilation that don't talk about the Buteyko method) to come up with our own theory on how it works. Sources we are using to describe the "theory" of how Buteyko work need to actually mention Buteyko. I'm not sure if Peter understands this concept or not.Yobol (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty scary, Yobol. I hate to do this, but I’d be interested to know what credentials you have that qualify you to be a Buteyko editor. What qualifies you to be an expert on Buteyko when you really don’t display much understanding about even the basics? Since you and I are going head to head on this, I may as well lay out my credentials first. Firstly, Yobol, I am a professional Biomedical Engineer. I have a Bachelors degree in Engineering Science and a Masters degree in medical science, both obtained from internationally recognized universities. I have attended all of the international Buteyko conferences and presented at two of them. On one occasion I was publicly warmly congratulated on my presentation by Professor Buteyko who was sitting in the front row of the audience. I have given lectures and delivered papers on Buteyko to both clinical staff, engineers, scientists and special interest groups from then general public. I underwent practitioner training as well as advanced practitioner training under Professor Buteyko, his wife Ludmila and Dr Novozhilov who is the director of the Buteyko clinic in Moscow. Dr Novozhilov has become my best friend. I have read extensively from translated Russian texts and have also read extensively on chronic hyperventilation in the western medical literature. I now own copies of many books written in the west on the Buteyko method. I am consulted widely through the medium of the internet, was involved in establishing most of the Buteyko support groups, host the Buteyko support group for Buteyko practitioners and host the oldest Buteyko web site in existence. I have travelled to Buteyko clinics all over Europe and the UK, have twice visited the Buteyko clinic in Moscow and once the clinic in Voronezh, Russia and have observed and participate in Buteyko classes held at the clinic in Moscow. I continue to be active in promoting an understanding of the Buteyko method which is an area in which I have specialized. Now Yobol, what are your credentials? Peter Kolb (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a pissing contest. No one gets extra leeway to break our policies, even if they're an expert in the subject. The sooner you realize where you broke our policies and resolve not to do it again, rather than personalize this issue, the sooner we can move forward with making a better article. Yobol (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the rules Yobol, and I dispute that there was any violation. That's why we've called in a third editor. Based on your response above, I rest my case. Peter Kolb (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If after 3 different experienced editors have told you we need to use sources that talk about Buteyko, and you still stubbornly assert there was nothing wrong with the removed section, there's nothing left to be said. I have better things to do than banging my head against brick walls or getting into infantile pissing contests about credentials. Do not introduce original research into this article, or it will be removed again. Yobol (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter, first off I'd like to thank you for clearly describing your conflict of interest (COI) on this subject. I suggest you read that link and follow the advice there, especially the section describing the "consequences of ignoring this guideline". You are an expert on Buteyko, and we like to have experts here, but when they are so involved with the subject as you are they are considered in most cases to be too close to remain objective. That appears to be the problem here. You know a lot about Buteyko, but are a pure beginner at even reading our policies and guidelines. Even for experienced editors they are a jungle.

While your expertise is interesting and I'm sure we can benefit from it, when it comes to editing experience and interpretation of policy you'd be wise to not be so haughty and recognize that you are a real newbie here. Regardless of expertise, all editors are equal. Even User:Jimbo Wales has no more rights in an editing situation than an ordinary 10 year old editor, if that editor follows policy. (There are exceptions for Wales as outlined here: WP:Jimbo Wales.) Currently you have accumulated 46 edits since 2006-03-22; Yobol has 1709 edits since 2006-09-09; I have 30,560 edits since 2005-12-18; and bobrayner has 8753 edits since 2004-12-23. While number of edits doesn't automatically mean one editor is more likely right about interpretation of policies (there are VERY many and they are VERY complicated!), in practice it usually does mean just that and you'd be wise to listen rather than be condescending. You're skating on very thin ice already per your policy violations and personal attacks. When you have repeatedly been warned and advised about your policy violations and you deny them and refuse to take the advice, that's considered disruptive and you can get blocked for it. You need to calm down or you'll just end up getting blocked and then where would we be? We'd be left with an unsatisfactory article and no one wants that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter, now that I have informed you of the COI guideline, it behooves me to also tell you to read this section describing how an abuse of COI can lead to blocks. Now you know. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yobol tells me there are three editors that have taken sides against my reading of the rules. I could only find two. You two seem to be good buddies - you even know each other's statistics. Brangifer's edit-ammetry within this context suggests that Bob is alleged to be the third. The dispute is not yet over and Bob has not yet deliverd any conclusion to me. Frankly, Bob Rayner has at least asked the right questions and kept an open dialogue. He actually sought explanations and I have some faith that at least a discussion is possible even if it ends up against me. Not withstanding his suspiciously rapid entry into this dispute, I am hopeful that the dialog will continue until all the issues are resolved. As far as I am aware, my only personal remark was around the competence of Yobol to edit an article on a topic he does not understand. But his urination mataphor to my request for credentials proves I was right. I should hope that Wikipedia articles are put together by experts who have something to contribute rather than editors who just know the rules. This dispute is not over and I won't be bullied with threats of excommunication by edit counters. Bullying with threats is no way to terminate a dispute that has not yet run its course. Peter Kolb (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not buddies with the other editors here anymore than I am with you. You just happen to be a newbie here. I know everyone's statistics immediately because I have a tool that tells me their status and privileges here when I let my mouse pointer hover over their username. I just did that with all the names of the currently active editors here, INCLUDING yours. Am I somehow a special "buddy" of yours because I did that? Your assumptions of bad faith are personal attacks and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is still very evident. We've all been there, but you'll save yourself a lot of grief if you'll exhibit a smidgin of humility and ALWAYS assume good faith. That's a very fundamental policy here and you're breaking it yet again.

As to bobrayner's "suspiciously rapid entry"... he wrote above "Hi; I came here to respond to your WP:3O request." How "suspicious" does that sound?! Peter, you seem to be a glutton for punishment because you time and time again are proved wrong in your assumptions and your flawed interpretations of policies. Try learning for awhile. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't we all just be nice to each other?

I came here in response to the WP:3O notice. To be honest, I'm amazed that anybody could place a request for input from uninvolved editors, and then be suspicious that a new uninvolved editor turns up to comment on the subject.

If you all want to get back to the original subject, I'd be happy to help (though I'd rather ask questions than issue orders). Alternatively, if you've changed your mind and don't want a third opinion, just say so - I'll remove the WP:3O template on my way out. bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Firstly let me say how grateful I am that you came to try to help us out of this gridlock. I apologize if you found my concerns offensive. This project is going to drain all your nervous energy because it's quite a lot more complex than it appears. It's also going to suck up a lot of your time, so I really appreciate you volunteering for this. In more recent times we've actually had some incredibly helpful editors, such as Spathi. Unfortunately he seems to have disappeared. When I first wrote the theory section and placed it onto the talk board, one of these editors eventually spliced it into the article. Others contributed massively by taking care of all the complex referencing. Still others spent hours looking up the references and creating links to all the accessible works. Thanks so much to all those people who contributed in their own way to help make this a really good article. You have been sensational editors and have tried to make a huge contribution to the Wikipedia project. People who came to look for information on Buteyko could actually learn something useful from it. It was a work for us all to be proud of. Then suddenly the heart was ripped out of it and all that work by so many people lay in ruins. The knife was sunk in brutally and with no discussion. It was an unfriendly act carried out without regard to the many people who contributed their time to this work. I've never experienced this kind of rudeness in my life and as a neophyte on Wikipedia, I'm bewildered. What kind of culture is there here that could allow such a thing to happen? So, please forgive me if I had some concern that Yobol would corral his mates to execute an ambush. I have no idea what goes on here. Look I, don't want this to be an attack on Yobol, but frankly I can't work with him and would prefer to work directly with you. I'm afraid the tiresome mantras are not helping, and I won't roll over because someone asserts that he's right and I'm wrong. I just want to add that I understand the need for discipline and order in a project as vast as Wikipedia - it would descend into chaos without it. I'm also very grateful to volunteers who help us neophytes around the rule book. I also don't want any special treatment. I'm happy to fall in with all the rules. The bottom line is that I've read the rules, and it is quite clear to me that nowhere have the rules been broken. These rules are not rocket science – they are not that complex! But you really need to understand the subject matter to understand that there is nothing in what I produced that violated any of these rules. For me to be guilty of synthesis you have to be able to point to something that I have synthesized. Both the Russian medical literature and the western medical literature on chronic hyperventilation say the same thing. Buteyko's scientific work is in difficult to access Russian journals, but the physiological principles of chronic hyperventilation are the same. For example, cardiologist Claude Lum talks about chronic hyperventilation becoming a habit. Kazarinov talks about the habituation process, the same concept. In order to explain this habituation process, the essential element in the theory, I dived into one of the finest medical textbooks and from that brought to the article an understanding of how the respiratory centre controls breathing, which you have to have in order to understand the habituation process. There is nothing new or novel in any of this. I have not combined A with B to arrive at C. I have combined A with A to explain A. But to understand this you really have to be familiar with the basics of chronic hyperventilation and Buteyko's work. For that reason I reject any notion of synthesis, and the simplistic arguments I've been faced with do no justice to the significance of this work. I think, Bob, that one of the reasons Yobol and I differ on this is because we're coming at it from different angles. That the Buteyko method is based on the chronic hyperventilation theory is axiomatic – it is not an arguable point. It was my role to present this theory and make it understandable for scientists, medics and lay people. Yobol is looking for a "how does Buteyko work" link through the western medical literature. These are actually separate issues. I would be happy for someone to start a "How does it work section" in the Buteyko article. As a starting point you would have to reference the theory on which it is based, but you could then argue against it or in favour of it or make up your own theories about how it works. But the theory that Buteyko proposed as a basis for the therapy he developed is immutable. Now on the question of the Banner, I'm going to roll over on this one but I am a little disappointed that no one has bothered to address the issue I raised. The banner does reference the talk page, and at a cursory glance Yobol appears to be right. But I took some trouble to find out the instructions on how to place it, and if you look up those rules it unambiguously tells you to put it at the top of the article, not in the talk page. Perhaps they use the same banner for both purposes, which is a little confusing. Perhaps also they are just directing people to the talk page to find out more about the dispute. There are two reasons I think the article should be flagged as being in dispute. Firstly, there are about 300 readers a day that look at this article. I think they ought to be made aware that the article may not be in a final state and can then elect to come back later when the dispute is settled. Secondly, it may attract people into looking at the dispute and then helping either you or me understand the situation better. Deleting this banner has not helped either cause. Thanks again, Bob, for looking into this. I really am grateful. Peter Kolb (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pkolb is the one who asked for input and you replied on the 3O page exactly(!) one hour later and then appeared here 14 minutes later. That's pretty good response time! I welcome you here. We need some more eyes on this situation. There are concerns about OR, SYNTH, sourcing, and personal attacks. We're dealing with a newbie, Pkolb, who is likely an expert on the subject, but that doesn't exempt him from OWN, COI and our other policies. If he would work with us, rather than claiming that his expertise somehow should allow him to create the article as he wishes, we'd be able to use his expertise. He just needs to recognize that Wikipedia's way of working isn't one of his areas of expertise. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we don't yet know whether or not Kazarinov's description of Buteyko's theory was published in a reliable source, why would it be superior to the "great body of literature in the west on this very theory"? There do seem to be other descriptions of Buteyko's theory that are more modern, published in multiple reliable sources and (helpfully) are in English.

If it's possible to get a copy of what Buteyko wrote, that could helpful, if framed appropriately. Probably much less useful for other parts of the article, but as far as the theory section is concerned, we could get a description of Buteyko's thoughts from the horse's mouth. Is any of it available online? bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. You can have a look at http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/BUT_BOV.htm . From memory it appeared as a foreword he wrote in one of the many English books available on Buteyko. But bear in mind the Kazarinov paper appeared in Buteyko's book that he himself edited. He offered that as the scientific explanation of his theory. This book (which I have referenced) in Russian is still available from the Buteyko Clinic in Moscow which he established and where he treated patients for many years. Alexander Stalmatski, who wrote "Freedom from Asthma" in English with Professor Buteyko's blessing talks about chronic hyperventilation being the basis of the theory but in a non technical way. Every book on Buteyko ever written, every DIY/Self help video or DVD is based on this theory. There is so much information on the web out there that is freely available on Buteyko that it makes this whole discussion we are having absurd. And this is the point I'm making. Editors should have some subject knowledge before editing an article let alone making massive changes. Have a look at my own web site, which has been up for about 15 years - in fact the first one ever on Buteyko - and it still googles highly. (The web site is http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/buteyko.htm .) On this site have been juxtaposed articles from the medical literature, such as Magarian's "Hyperventilation syndrome, a diagnosis begging for recognition" or Lum's "Hyperventilation: the tip and the iceberg" with articles from Buteyko. There is also available a lengthy interview with Professor Buteyko which is available on many sites, and you could have a look at it from http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/but_intv.htm . I have a video of the professor explaining his theory although it is in Russian. An interview with Buteyko on the 60 minutes TV program in NewZealand, with interpreter, and of which I have a copy, confirms literally from Buteyko's mouth that his therapy is aimed at reversing chronic hyperventilation. If you go to a Buteyko class and see what they are taught, it is inescapable that chronic hyperventilation is the basis of the theory. It is very simple. Chronic hyperventilation means a chronic shortage of Carbon dioxide, which means also a shortage of bicarbonate caused by habitually breathing too much. It is very basic, very fundamental and some very basic familiarity with this topic will confirm that the Buteyko method is based on the identical theory that has already been well established in the mainstream medical literature. On the Kazarinov article - it is important firstly because it is offered by Buteyko as an explanation of his work, but it is also by far the most advanced and detailed account of the theory that I have ever seen published anywhere. If you have a good modern account of Buteyko's theory that is published in reliable sources in English, then I would be very grateful if you let me know where I can find it. It will obviously bring this discussion to a close Peter Kolb (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If he has been such a prominent figure, hasn't his work been published in an "official" translation somewhere? Yobol (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that he had something like 35 scientific publications in the USSR. He was Director of Functional Diagnostics at the Institute of Experimental Biology & Medicine at the USSR Academy of Science in Akademgorodok near Novosibirsk in the 1960s. You did not get that sort of a gig if you were not a distinguished academician in the former USSR. And can I remind you that the Russians have a very advanced scientific community. He probably could think of no reason why he should bother publishing his stuff in what was considered to be the decadent west, on the other side of the iron curtain. Peter Kolb (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of Banner for alerting about disputes

I need to comment on Yobol once again removing stuff I put in the Buteyko article. This time it concerns a simple banner announcing that there is a dispute over this article. Readers should be aware that this article is in dispute. Yobol says the banner should go into the Talk page only as the banner mentions talk page. In my view this is just a reference to the talk page, because if you look at the instructions in Template_Messages/Disputes you will see that next to that banner in the table it clearly says, in the square under "Where it goes" - "Articles or sections where an unresolved discussion exists, and a third opinion has been requested." Now I've cut and pasted that. At the top of the table it says they go on top of the article or section. It does not say that these banners go into the Talk page. Unless Wikipedia maintains ambiguity about the words articles, section and talk page, Yobol is once again out of line. Peter Kolb (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the template documentation, "This is the {{3O}} or third opinion message box. It should be placed on the article talk page in the section that discusses the ongoing dispute." I have therefore removed it once again. Please stop placing inappropriate templates in article space. Yobol (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The template says "This template is only a talk page banner". I think Yobol was right. On another point, why is the template needed if we're already discussing the problem here? bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Efficacy section

This section relies much too much on primary studies. I will be re-writing the section using reviews, including the ones I noted in the "theory" section above and cochrane review, per WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

...and I'm done. Comments welcome. Yobol (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Solid Medical Evidence Is Necessary

Without specific numbers related to respiratory parameters (minute ventilation, etCO2, arterial CO2, respiratory frequency, tidal volume, etc.) related to asthma, and other conditions, as we well as the effects of clinical trials on these parameters, the article about the Buteyko method is nonsense.

Clinical trials did not measure the correlation between the above respiratory parameters of asthmatics at rest (especially their minute ventilation) and their disease symptoms. In fact, very few asthma subjects in the control groups were able to retrain their automatic or unconscious breathing patterns in these 6 trials. How can one claim anything about the Buteyko method if no subjects were able to normalize their breathing? What are you making claims about? Buteyko never claimed that some practitioners or video could take a group of patients and achieve this or this result. We should study science and hard core evidence, not some fantasies. (Artour2006 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

We need reliable sources that tie those conditions you added to this article as a cause as discussed; the table on the other article appears to be original research that is synthesizing to add a point. I have therefore reverted. Yobol (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The current article on the Buteyko method is now a piece of confusion. Buteyko made the following central claims: 1. Sick people hyperventilate. 2. If they retrain their breathing back to the medical norm (5-8 L/min, 10-12 breaths per minute, about 40 mm Hg for etCO2 and arterial CO2 at rest for an adult), their symptoms disappear, life quality is normal, and they do not require medication.

This is what you, Yobol, can investigate, if you are to write about the Buteyko method, by finding relevant medical evidence, but not picking some specific references. The clinical trials have little to do with the the Buteyko method, since the subjects did not normalize their breathing. Anyone can check it. During their best shot, they slow down breath from about 15 to 9.5 L/min, bu the norm is less.

What you made with the article is falsified evidence because the article does not address these 2 fundamental Buteyko findings and claims. Original research is surely better than a piece of confusion.

I checked this User page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yobol It does not exist. How a person without a User page can contribute here? It may indicate conflict of interests. (Artour2006 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

No original research is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you want to say the multiple reviews are wrong, you will need to find reliable sources for medical claims who agree with you in order to place such arguments in the article. The fact I have not created a user page has no other meaning other than I have not found it necessary or useful to do so, and anyone can edit here, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. Yobol (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Subjective vs. objective

Recent change to the lead suggested that decreased rescue inhaler usage was an "objective" finding; this is not the case. Rescue inhaler usage is based almost entirely on subjective feeling of symptoms, and is therefore not a clear "objective" finding such as lung function or peak flow which does not rely on patient symptoms. I have therefore reverted the change. Yobol (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

...and someone else beat me to it. Please don't re-add without further discussion.Yobol (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Useless comment

I would like to thanks you for this talk page, the theory section above is gold. I just experienced a chronic hyperventilation syndrome myself today, hyperventilating for 10 hours in a row. I can tell you, no medicine fix this and that better breathing, or reprogramming breathing seem the only solution. I also disagree with the comment above, thats its all about breathing less.

From: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/807277-overview#a0104

"The explanation of hyperventilation syndrome lies partially in the mechanics of breathing. Normal tidal volumes range from 35-45% of vital capacity at rest. The elastic recoil of the chest wall resists hyperinflation of the lungs beyond that level, and inspiratory volumes beyond this level are perceived as effort or dyspnea. Patients with hyperventilation syndrome tend to breathe by using the upper thorax rather than the diaphragm, resulting in chronically overinflated lungs. When stress induces a need to take a deep breath, the deep breathing is perceived as dyspnea. The sensation of dyspnea creates anxiety, which encourages more deep breathing, and a vicious cycle is created."

Its not breathing less, its breathing well. Using the nose to breath favorise the use of the diaphragm and others thing like relaxing the shoulder help the air going to the diaphragm.

Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.244.164 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Another passage from the same web page:

"Most patients with hyperventilation syndrome tend to breathe using the upper thorax and have hyperinflated lungs throughout the respiratory cycle. Because the residual lung volume is high, the patient is unable to take a full tidal volume and experiences dyspnea. Physically compressing the upper thorax and having the patient exhale maximally decreases hyperinflation of the lungs. Instructing the patient to breathe abdominally, using the diaphragm more than the chest wall, often leads to improvement in subjective dyspnea and eventually corrects many of the associated symptoms.

Diaphragmatic breathing slows the respiratory rate, gives the patient a distracting maneuver to perform when attacks occur, and gives the patient a sense of self-control during the episode. This technique has been shown to be very effective in a high proportion of patients with hyperventilation syndrome.

Patients should be referred to a specialist (eg, physiotherapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, family physician, internist, respiratory therapist) who can reinforce this approach.

Use of benzodiazepines for stress relief and for resetting the trigger for hyperventilation is effective, but patients may require prolonged treatment.

Although acute chemical sedation may be effective and humane in selected severe cases, prolonged use of these medications should not be initiated in the ED.

Stress reduction therapy, beta-blockers, and breathing retraining all have proven effective in reducing the intensity and the frequency of episodes of hyperventilation. If the diagnosis of hyperventilation syndrome has been established, the patient should be referred to an appropriate therapist to implement these techniques over the long term."

Hope someone can make something good of thoses informations. I searched a lot on the subject (nothing to do with asthma, its about hyperventilation syndrome) and the problem seem to be really more commun than we think. Some seem even to have hyperventilation disorder but dont have the extremes symptoms and dont even know they have a problem, or that their health problem is related to that.

Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.24.29 (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Intersting passage from THE BUTEYKO THEORY ABOUT A KEY ROLE OF BREATHING FOR HUMAN HEALTH

Page 84. To exclude UNNATURAL ways of breathing. Hence follows a recommendation to the patient to try to exclude mouth breathing, i.e. to breathe only through a nose. To influence deliberately the MRR of breathing with the purpose of: a) levelling breathing, b) restoring sensitivity to air deficit in the case of its disorder, c) correcting breathing by a SLIGHT reduction of its intensity.

Page 90 from Appendix 2. Some attributes showing low qualification of a practitioner. (or my interpretation: what Buteyko method is not) • He/she trains you seldom, e.g., once a week; or training is limited by less than a week’s time for all patients. • He/she suggests you “accumulate CO2” instead of correcting breathing. • He/she thinks of the Buteyko Method as a system of exercises.

Based on that and what I understand, the method is a kind of therapy (kinda like clinical psychology), and not a set of exercices, and that it require constant focus to change behavior.

I check the references and I only see references talking about others things or a complete misunderstanding of the Buteyko method and of the concept of breathing relearning.

I will not argue that good breathing is not good for health, it is. But, is it what we are talking about here?

I have read from somes who consulted breathing therapist about hyperventilating syndrome that healing can take a years and may be unsuccessful, we are not talking about a drug. Some had this problem (hyperventilating syndrome) for 30 years and every day, and tried everything, neurologist, psychologist, homeopathy, acupuncture, hypnosis, mix of drugs, name it, without success. The only thing that seem to really have a chance to work is breathing relearning.

Just to add that breathing relearning is something that we will probably will never be able to prove. The concept of breathing relearning from what I have read, it is not about getting breathing good practice but to retrain your brain (or the nervous system, brainstem) for it to act correctly again. Thats why that even if you remove the stress, the problem may persist, also the longer your brain is accustomed to the bad breathing behavior, that harder it may be to correct it. Well, thats all theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.24.29 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent chages

I have reverted the recent changes for several reasons:

1) The source does not support the statement "a new review has found that the earlier situation has changed: Several controlled trials have been conducted" - only one "new" study mentions Buteyko

2) The rearranging places way too much WP:WEIGHT (all confined to one paragraph) from Bruton's 2011 review; it discusses all breathing retraining, not just Buteyko, so too much weight. (I will also change the description to reflect this).

3) Rearranging the material (although the edit summary says something about a new source, I did not see one) jumbled the effectiveness and recommendation paragraphs. Yobol (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments: I reverted the recent changes; Bruton 2011 is a general review of breathing retraining, not just Buteyko, so it is hard to generalize the findings based on what is actually in the paper to make sweeping statements about Buteyko, and segregating the conclusions of this one paper from the others I think creates significant WP:WEIGHT issues. Just because one newer review it doesn't necessarily deserve much more weight than others. Yobol (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Keeping to facts

I would like to update this article in the normal style of medical reporting. That is to present information based on facts without using emotive words such 'purportedly' and 'so-called'. If Buteyko is not described in medical literature as a 'retraining technique' let's not use that term and use 'breathing exercises' instead. It is better to be a very short accurate article than a long messy one. I have had a number of scientific papers published and feel that I can provide useful contributions, but not in a piecemeal way by altering words here and there. Janet Brindley (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is called a "breathing retraining" in addition to "training" and "exercises" (see for instance the Cochrane review who uses all 3). Retraining seems to be the most descriptive, but have no qualms with the change you just made. Suggestions for improvement of the article are always welcome, but be mindful if you have any significant conflict of interest with regards to the subject. Yobol (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been five RCT trials of Buteyko, none of these are now listed in the references? The most recent trial published in 2008 (Cowie et al) was an exemplary trial with no methodological problems. 1. Bowler SD et al, Medical Journal of Australia 1998 169:p11‐12 2. Opat AJ et al, Journal of Asthma 2000 37 557—564 3. Cooper S et al, Thorax 2003 58: p674—679 4. McHugh P et al, New Zealand Medical Journal 2003 116:1187 5. Cowie RL et al Respir. Med. May 2008 102(5):726‐732Janet Brindley (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Per our guideline on reliable sources for health claims, we do not use individual primary studies such as those above, we use secondary sources such as reviews in the literature and those published by major medical societies. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence on cause of asthma

Whilst there is evidence that that certain triggers can start or worsen asthma symptoms,this does not mean that they are the CAUSE of asthma. Asthma is caused by inflammation. Triggers can be allergens, viral infection and hyperventilation (drying and cooling the lungs) I therefore think that using the word 'cause' is inappropriate.Janet Brindley (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That hyperventilation is a "cause" of asthma according to the Buteyko method is supported by the sources in the article (see for example the Bruton 2005 review). Yobol (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this. In the section Keeping to Facts you say 'we do not use individual primary studies such as those above, we use secondary sources' but now you are quoting primary sources from the Bruton review? Can't we stick to facts about what Buteyko Breathing Techniques(BBT)actually involves and what the evidence is for it being effective? Long conjecture about how it might work seems pointless when there is a paucity of evidence to justify any theory.Spathi2 (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bruton review is a secondary source. All secondary sources, by definition, use information gathered from other sources including primary ones. We preferentially use secondary sources over primary ones per WP:PSTS, WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. A complete encyclopedic article on the Buteyko method has to describe what adherents believe is the mechanism behind it. Yobol (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Up to date

My understanding is that articles should be up to date. Therefore only the most recent reviews and treatment guidelines are relevant as they include all the available evidence. I would therefore bring to your attention the 'Systematic review of the effectiveness of breathing retraining in asthma management. Burgess J et al published Dec 2011'.Janet Brindley (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will incorporate that later today when I get a chance. Yobol (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And, added. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is it also time to remove a couple of the earlier references? Such as 7 Ernst 2000 written when only one RCT on Buteyko was available for review and 10 Steurer-Stey 2002 which I have been unable to find, it was published in Swiss Med Wkly which I doubt compares with the 2011 Burgess review in Expert.Rev Respir Med in terms of WP:WEIGHTSpathi2 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about Ernst, have removed it from list of reviews as 12 years is probably too old. Kept Steurer-Stey for now; both journals appear to have about the same reputation (neither that great) and given the paucity of research in this area, ~10 years is probably within the range of being adequate. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ernst is still there, referred to in the second paragraph of the Effectiveness section.Spathi2 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also it is not appropriate to judge an article on it's age, is content that is important there must be a wikipedia short form for that. Spathi2 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the medical field we absolutely do take the age of an article into account, due to the progressive nature of how research develops. I have left Ernst as a reference to what I feel are relatively uncontroversial statements; that these studies have relatively small sample sizes and have difficulty in placebo control. These, unfortunately, are true of almost all alt-med studies as they do not have a lot of money put behind them. Yobol (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

These may not be uncontroversial statements, but this article is about the Buteyko method, and it only considers one of the six RCTs.86.152.161.10 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If they are uncontroversial, then they satisfy our policy on verifiability. If you have want to suggest sources to replace them, please point them out. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The word 'cure'

Whilst translators of Buteyko's original work over forty years ago described his work as a 'cure', qualified Buteyko teachers today do not use that term. Using the word 'cure' in this article does not reflect how useful the techniques are in helping some people to reduce their symptoms. That Buteyko can help to control symptoms of breathlessness is something that the majority of the reviewers seem to agree with.Spathi2 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of Butyeko to "cure" is actually mentioned in the Courtney review. As a compromise, I've added "treat or" to any discussion of cure so that either will be an option. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtney's article consistently uses the word 'treat' except in the context of the history of the method and Dr Buteyo's (translated) description in the 1960s. I suggest using only the word 'treat'.86.152.161.10 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be used by Courtney in the context of the theory and promotion of it, so I have kept it in the "theory" section and the part in the lead that describe the theory, but removed it from other contexts. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nasal breathing

The section on Nasal breathing contains a sentence on Other methods ..... How is this relevant to the Buteyko method? Suggest deletion or change as the implication is that a teacher might suggest CPAP , or jaw strap as part of treatment, which is not the case (as per description of techniques in reviews). Mouth taping is sometimes suggested as a tool to encourage nose breathing when the mouth breathing habit is unconscious.Spathi2 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Yobol (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Satisfactory studies

Following from above. In that case they must be controversial. GINA pg37 has a section on CAM where it states that 'Apart from those mentioned below, there have been no satisfactory studies'. That surely means 'those below' are satisfactory studies. The second paragraph of 'those below' says 'Several studies of breathing and/or relaxation techniques for asthma and/or dysfunctional breathing, including the Buteyko method and the Papworth method, have shown improvements in symptoms etc...'. I would therefore suggest that your statements based on Ernst are controversional because they imply that these small studies are unsatisfactory. GINA is saying that 'conclusions about their efficacy (ie Buteyko and Papworth methods) can be drawn.'(ie from these studies). So I would suggest replacing the negative Ernst statement with a positive GINA one.Spathi2 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, which of the two statements that Ernst is referencing in our article do you feel is incorrect? I see no point in changing references to uncontroversial statements. Yobol (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Hi, I have found the full version of Steurer-Stey in the Swiss Med Wkly archives and it also only refers to the first RCT - the Bowler trial of 1998. It was the Bowler trial that had the methodological problems. The McHugh trial, 2003, used an identical protocol. The McHugh trial was carefully designed to address all the problems of the earlier trial in particular 'inequality of investigator contact', which was the main critcism of the Bowler trial. Spathi2 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain what your suggestion here is. We do generally rely on secondary sources without trying to assessing on whether the source is reliable or not. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Steurer-Stey does not add useful information to this article about Buteyko techniques because it only considers one of the six RCTs.86.152.161.10 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, you are right, it probably is too old (any that doesn't include the 2003 Thorax study probably is). I have removed it, but feel all other reviews are appropriate at this time. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that any review which does not include the Cooper, 2003, Thorax article is too old? Ref 6. Holloway, Ram (Cochrane review) just missed including this paper. Spathi2 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually referring to Thomas 2003. Cochrane reviews, being pretty much a gold standard with regards to systematic reviews, should be included. Yobol (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And upon further review, Markham and Gyorik may be too old. Will go through them again. Yobol (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And I have removed the Markham and Gyorik reviews as too old, so re-wrote section. Updated the lead as well. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Gyorik is still there.Spathi2 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is referencing the difficulties in study, which, again, is not controversial so should be adequate as a reference. It is no longer being used as a reference as evaluation for the effectiveness. Yobol (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

GINA Report, Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention reference

I have looked at the updated document (December 2011) to your reference and have not been able to find any reference to Buteyko or breathing exercises. Please would you inform me of the relevant page or is it another document that you refering to?Spathi2 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Updated section using new guidelines (the previous version was the 2009 version). On page 37-38. Yobol (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes noted, however this is not pg 37-38 of the 124 page GINA document, are you looking at a short version?86.152.161.10 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at the pdf linked in the reference. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Theory section, second paragraph, first sentence. GINA p62 says 'Extreme emotional stress can lead to hyperventilation and hypocapnia, that can cause airway narrowing.' It gives 'laughing' as an example of extreme emotional stress, which seems counter-intuitive.Spathi2 (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What is your recommendation on how to change the article? Yobol (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this, but in the meantime GINA request 'Please reference this document as follows: From the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2011.' You have included date downloaded (2012) which may be misleading for future updates.Spathi2 (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Added publication year. Yobol (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs

An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide information to a reader in a logical fashion, it seems to me that the natural order for a reader looking at a topic is to ask 'What is it?' and then 'How does it work?' . I would therefore suggest changing the order of the paragraphs to Description followed by Theory. It will then be possible in the theory section to address why the exercises might work in a more logical way.Spathi2 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The average reader would not understand why the Buteyko uses controlled pauses, etc. without knowing the theory behind it. It is therefore more logical to discuss the theory first. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reduced Breathing

Buteyko does encourage people to monitor their condition using a Peak Flow device alongside using the Control Pause. Please change 'Rather than' to 'In addition to '.Spathi2 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed mention of peak flow, as it is unsourced, and apparently a source of dispute. Other supporters of Buteyko have mentioned on this talk page previously (see Archives) that peak flow is not to be used with Buteyko. We can add discussion back when independent secondary sources discusses it. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Paragraph 1, last sentence. This sentence is out of context and out of date. The exaggerated claims were described by Bruton (2011) as 'early' meaning made many years ago. What is more important is the situation now. Bruton says 'There is now a convincing body of evidence that breathing retraining for people with asthma is effective in improving patient-reported endpoints such as symptoms, health status and psychological well being, and may be effective in reducing bronchodilator medication usage'.

Also Burgess (2011) says 'It is reasonable for clinicians to offer qualified support to patients with asthma undertaking these breathing retraining techniques.'

I therefore propose that the last sentence is dropped and a new first sentence is included as follows which is referenced to Bruton and Burgess. Breathing retraining as an add-on therapy for asthma can be helpful for some people with asthma.(Burgess 2011, Bruton 2011)Spathi2 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The sentence is well sourced, but I have added "earlier" to clarify to make match source better. Burgess and Bruton's conclusion re: asthma are already discussed in the last paragraph. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

150 diseases

Effectiveness para 1. Modern advocates of the Buteyko method do not believe that hyperventilation causes all these diseases. It would be more accurate to say ' 'Advocates of the Buteyko method suggest that a wide range of other diseases may include an element of hyperventilation, and this may be treated with the Buteyko breathing techniques.'Spathi2 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Adjusted to better match source. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title

I propose the title of the article be changed to Buteyko Breathing Technique to reflect current terminology.

The first sentence would be changed to The Buteyko breathing technique or Buteyko breathing method ........

All 'Buteyko method' in the article would change to the abbreviation 'Buteyko technique'

Buteyko method was the term used when the techniques were first introduced from Russia, the inclusion of the word 'breathing' was quickly adopted to more accurately describe the techniques. Overall the word 'technique' is used more often than 'method' .

A new Cochrane Review is in process entitled 'Buteyko breathing for asthma' and the protocol uses the term Buteyko breathing techniques, so this is likely to be the best descriptive term for the future.

Most of the modern references used in the article use the term Buteyko breathing technique or only refer to papers which use that term.

Of the recent references only Courtney(2008) consistently uses the term Buteyko Breathing method.Spathi2 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on which title is better. Will review the secondary sources more closely to see which, if any, is more commonly used. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of research

It might be worth pointing out that as there are no drugs involved it has been difficult to get funding for further research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebebright (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

However, the same has been recommended to be beneficial for Asthma by the British Thoracic Society & Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) in the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma based on Level B evidence.-Diptanshu^Talk 12:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tone

I found the tone of this article overly sceptical (AmE. skeptical) & pessimistic, as I have seen Butyko applied very effectively & methodically by a close family member. It should be better known are more widely used IMHO. The person in question suddenly came down with asthma in their late 30s & found it very difficult to manage first few years, resulting in several scary ambulance trips to ER & a week in IC in one instance. They ordered a video on the Butyko technique from a local clinic & simply followed that methodically, making their own tables to keep track of their exercises/progress. They set out to reduce their use of oral inhaler, and managed to reduce it by one double puff per day, from 6 double puffs per day (which seemed dangerously high) at the beginning to none at the end of 6 weeks - at which point the inhaler became a back-up/safety device for occasional use only. Remarkable. That was 10 years ago - the benefit has lasted. The asthma is not cured but it became manageable after that, with only one precautionary hospital outpatient visit since. Note: this was done alongside medical investigation and treatment (including steroids & Singular occasionally latterly), not instead of it. I think some patients, doctors & nurses will find this a godsend for helping those with difficult to control asthma. Not a complete cure but a very useful tool - perhaps life saving in some cases. (I have no vested interest in Butyko but I have seen it work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.241.71 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very low quality content

The article is of very low quality since it biased in ignorance of numerous basics related to the Buteyko method.

1. Buteyko suggested certain clinical norms for breathing at rest: 4 L/min, 8-10 breaths/min, 46 mm Hg CO2 in the alveoli and arterial blood. The article does not discuss it.

2. Buteyko developed and patented his Table of Health Zones which provides a link between cardiorespiratory parameters and health of people.

3. Buteyko suggested that hyperventilation is common in people with chronic diseases. See Homepage of NormalBreathing.com for clinical evidence.

4. Even though reduced breathing exercises were used for most effective known clinical trials on cancer and asthma, Western clinical studies of the Buteyko method did not test the Buteyko method since less than 5% (possibly 0%) of the experimental subjects who achieved Buteyko norms for health.

Generally, it is a poorly written article based on myths and popular beliefs about breathing, and not on available Western clinical research and Russian publications. ARakhimov 10:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, avoid any soap opera topics and stick to facts

The previous soap opera message was removed as irrelevant. ARakhimov 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Any changes that are not preliminary explained on the Talk page will be reversed

A friendly reminder about Wikipedia rules: Please, stick to Wikipedia rules of good conduct. Before making any changes, provide solid grounds on the Talk page.

The previous version of the Buteyko article was: "However, this theory is not widely supported in the medical community due to the lack of evidence supporting either the theory behind the method" This is simply not correct. There is abundant clinical evidence that confirmed that hypervnetilation is a norm in chronic diseases. See Homepage of NormalBreathing.com. ARakhimov 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS, our guideline on what is a reliable source for medical information on Wikipedia. That website does not meet that criteria, the already cited review article we use as a source does. Please do not change the article again until you find a WP:MEDRS compliant source and get consensus here, thanks. Yobol (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Clinical science claims that hyperventilation is the norm in disease

Clinical evidence claims that chronic hyperventilation is the norm in chronic conditions. This is a fact of science and a reminder to provide supporting medical evidence for anyone who has objections to this statement or continues to reverse the Buteyko page to claims that "this theory is not widely supported in the medical community due to the lack of evidence supporting either the theory ".ARakhimov 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtourRakhimov (talk • contribs)

Artour, I left a warning with instructions on your talk page. You are close to getting blocked for edit warring. Regardless of whether or not you are right, you must follow BRD and stick to discussion here until a consensus is reached. Don't try to force your edits or version. There is no rush. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BullRangifer, for your message related to Wiki rules. Following rules of Wikipedia, It is not about who is right and who is wrong. There are exact numbers from clinical studies. We are discussing matters of science and medicine not personal needs of individuals.ARakhimov 06:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As you may have noticed above, it matters not "whether or not you are right". My immediate concern is to stop any edit warring and see if you can reach a consensus with editors who are watching this article. You're right that it's not about "personal needs of individual." It's about how to use RS, especially WP:MEDRS. You also need to heed the COI advice above. You have a COI, and yet you recommend your own website. Please avoid doing that. It's not a RS. If there are any MEDRS compliant sources there, then mention just them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, BullRangifer. I collect clinical evidence and facts. This evidence includes dozens of medical studies. I refer to NormalBreathing.com Homepage in order to avoid posting 70+ references on this page or on Buteyko page. Do you suggest that I provide these 70+ references (that people with diseases and modern normal subjects hyperventilate - breathe 2-3 times more than the norm) first on the Talk page and then we can decide what to do with facts? I can do that (without a referral to NormalBreathing.com), if it is better for a discussion and finding a consensus.ARakhimov 07:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)≈

If something's an accepted medical fact, it will be easy to find a good WP:MEDRS source saying so. If there is no such source, then it isn't an accepted medical fact. Now - what source is proposed? (Add: and to be useful here, it should be mentioned in relation to the Buteyko method.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Alexbrn. This is exactly what the current Buteyko method page does not include: a verified supported statement that hyperventilation is not the norm in chronic disease. Such evidence would be impossible to find since clinical studies that measured ventilation proved the opposite statement. Thus, the current article provides a bold statement that is A) unsupported, B) opposite to real clinical facts. Therefore, it is suggested to remove such unsupported statements from the page. ARakhimov 08:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Buteyko method for asthma

Seemed as a good quality research that shows some benefits of practising Buteyko method for treating asthma symptoms http://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/8/674 Discovered as a citation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama#cite_note-28 (which also shows that elements of pranayama does not help) 86.182.225.106 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We need secondary sources in line with WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a humourous end to the article: "cost of using these [breathing] techniques may be prohibitive." - Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.40.32 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)