Talk:Pranayama
Script error: No such module "Message box".
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pranayama Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Archives
Why is the article "Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials" not wp:meds?
The source "Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials" was removed from this Wikipedia page. Why is this source not wp:medrs? Robinesque (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Um, now we have two threads on the same topic with the same discussants; and I have no idea why you would thank me for removing one source, and chide me for removing another very similar source: with the one small difference that you added the second one. But to answer your question directly: you're asking the wrong question. ALL the med. review articles met the bare minimum of MEDRS; the only trouble was, they all also barely said anything that could be considered medically useful. I may add that describing Pranayama as a medical intervention is rather strange historically and culturally, as its purpose is entirely spiritual; its goals in modern yoga may have changed to being personal (emotional well-being, etc) but it was never designed for medical effects. Be that as it may, we had several review studies all of which concluded that the results were not terribly convincing. Combined with the fact that a medical treatment is an A+B==>C, A a disease/condition, B a treatment designed and intended for A, and C better health, and pranayama not being designed or intended for anything, I think we'd be much better off not including such things in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining about the studies barely saying anything medically useful. I'll find one with a higher level of evidence. Robinesque (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- just incorrect, "never designed for medical effects." where did you pull this from? maybe read some yoga sutras and practice some pranyam and learn from a guru or online videos before saying some bold claim like this. learn this history of pranyam and yoga. it is the union of mind and body. If you are the fragile westerner type, read articles of pranayam rechniques mathcing for illneses like PTSD, autism and anxiety.etc, from David Shanhoff Khasla. Almost all cultures and healing practioners use the power of the breath and the fact that we can switch between autonomic and somatic control of the breath. GgKachuwa (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Abuse is not permitted on Wikipedia. I considered deleting your post and issuing a formal warning, but I think a reply may be more helpful here. Pranayama has been used in yoga for many centuries with spiritual goals, not medical ones. The medicalisation of yoga and pranayama is a 20th century phenomenon, involving Kuvalayananda in particular. Wikipedia works from evidence, not hearsay; talk of what "almost all cultures and healing practitioners" do has no relevance to this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Um, now we have two threads on the same topic with the same discussants; and I have no idea why you would thank me for removing one source, and chide me for removing another very similar source: with the one small difference that you added the second one. But to answer your question directly: you're asking the wrong question. ALL the med. review articles met the bare minimum of MEDRS; the only trouble was, they all also barely said anything that could be considered medically useful. I may add that describing Pranayama as a medical intervention is rather strange historically and culturally, as its purpose is entirely spiritual; its goals in modern yoga may have changed to being personal (emotional well-being, etc) but it was never designed for medical effects. Be that as it may, we had several review studies all of which concluded that the results were not terribly convincing. Combined with the fact that a medical treatment is an A+B==>C, A a disease/condition, B a treatment designed and intended for A, and C better health, and pranayama not being designed or intended for anything, I think we'd be much better off not including such things in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Kuvalayananda, pranayama, and many failed attempts at research ... are certainly relevant here
I've added a chunk on the anthropologist Joseph Alter's book-length study of Kuvalayananda's lifelong study of pranayama and yoga. The work had a profound effect on yoga as exercise, as the "medicalisation" (as Goldberg calls it) had what Alter calls the accidental effect of transforming traditional or classical yoga into something acceptable to the modern world. Alter is extremely careful in his sourcing, and we can trust his reports of the work done. There is no doubt, either, that the work made measurements of many physiological variables. The question is what, if anything, the measurements mean, and I have been equally careful to avoid asserting that they mean anything medical. Similarly, we can trust Zaccaro et al 2018 in their report that only 15 out of 2,461 papers were even vaguely usable: they must be telling the truth about that. Whether the remaining 15 said anything useful in WP:MEDRS terms is a different question, and I'm happy to defer on that point. What the policy does not forbid in any way is the truthful reporting of a century of what, from a medical standpoint, is a whole tradition of failed research. From a spiritual standpoint, and from the viewpoint of the history of modern yoga, on the other hand, the work is of great interest for its transformation of a solitary spiritual practice in the backstreets of India into a mass system of exercise across the Western world. Hope all this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's fine except if the article starts talking about effects on creatinine levels and urea acidity then stronger sourcing is needed; similarly the Frontiers journal is fine for commenting on the paucity of good research (a truism in many fields), but not for the more biomedical payload it essays. Bon courage (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not really; all we're saying is that the projects did work on those parameters and (within their undoubted limitations) thought they had made all sorts of findings, of which we're giving one example. I have no intention of endorsing any of the findings, nor of saying anything about what the findings might mean in medical terms, but we need to show that Kuvalayananda and crew were doing physiological measurements, however incompetently and however lacking in controls, to indicate what kind of stuff was being done. If there are any words that need to be added to make this clear, I'll add them; in fact, I'll take a look at the text again now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well 'endorsement' would be several degrees worse, but WP:BMI need MEDRS, and biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health. Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works. Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've had exactly this conversation over with the folks over at the WikiProject a month or so back, and they assured me that as long as we weren't making any claims of effectiveness, we could say what we liked about work done. That position is clear and logical, and it complies with policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well if that was the message it is wrong, and WP:BMI sets out what is covered by MEDRS which includes many other things than "effectivness" and includes (but is not limited to) adverse effects, drug interactions, epidemiology, pharmacological action and so on. Your new wording is however probably okay as it skirts round relaying the results of primary research. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- The message was that medical claims of any sort, as you rightly say, are governed by specific policy. Historical and philosophical statements are not, which we seem to agree upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, though "historical" is quite carefully defined in WP:NOTBMI because of the regular phenomenon of editors claiming that stuff in the past (i.e. everything in every source) is "historical" and so MEDRS never applies. Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, though "historical" is quite carefully defined in WP:NOTBMI because of the regular phenomenon of editors claiming that stuff in the past (i.e. everything in every source) is "historical" and so MEDRS never applies. Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- The message was that medical claims of any sort, as you rightly say, are governed by specific policy. Historical and philosophical statements are not, which we seem to agree upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well if that was the message it is wrong, and WP:BMI sets out what is covered by MEDRS which includes many other things than "effectivness" and includes (but is not limited to) adverse effects, drug interactions, epidemiology, pharmacological action and so on. Your new wording is however probably okay as it skirts round relaying the results of primary research. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've had exactly this conversation over with the folks over at the WikiProject a month or so back, and they assured me that as long as we weren't making any claims of effectiveness, we could say what we liked about work done. That position is clear and logical, and it complies with policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well 'endorsement' would be several degrees worse, but WP:BMI need MEDRS, and biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health. Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works. Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not really; all we're saying is that the projects did work on those parameters and (within their undoubted limitations) thought they had made all sorts of findings, of which we're giving one example. I have no intention of endorsing any of the findings, nor of saying anything about what the findings might mean in medical terms, but we need to show that Kuvalayananda and crew were doing physiological measurements, however incompetently and however lacking in controls, to indicate what kind of stuff was being done. If there are any words that need to be added to make this clear, I'll add them; in fact, I'll take a look at the text again now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)