Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / April 2004
a succsesful breathing technique
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Evgenij Barsukov - 08 Apr 2004 21:52 GMT This sounds like a nice overview of the life of an asmathic and with a self-achieved happy end http://www.yogajournal.com/health/127.cfm
Definetely something to learn from this. I dont think anybody can say this is an attempt to sell anything.
Btw. I did google this group so I already know what is a typical reaction on mention of breathing techniques - so some of readers can spare repeating their "statements". I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation for a child and effectiveness.
Regards, Evgenij
 Signature __________________________________________________ *science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com ----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
Peter Kolb - 09 Apr 2004 00:01 GMT >I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing >techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation >for a child and effectiveness. There are an awful lot of breathing therapies out there today. Most of them have absolutely no physiological basis whatsoever. In fact much of the breathing propaganda is responsible for a decline in our health. In fact it is so bad that it has become part of our way of life to advise people to "take a deep breath". I've actually heard this sort of advice given to people with anxiety disorders. Since increased breathing increases sympathetic tone and decreases parasympathetic tone, it will just make the anxiety worse. And for asthmatics that sort of advice could be dangerous.
However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without question, stands out. The Buteyko breathing technique is not just a single breathing technique, but a set of breathing tools to help an individual reverse chronic hyperventilation. The theory behind it is quite compelling and well documented in the medical literature, although very poorly understood by mainstream medicine. The therapy is goal orientated. You are taught to increase average arterial CO2 levels in a way that suites you best. You are also taught the lifestyle factors that are responsible for your chornic hyperventilation in the first place.
There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of which have produced extraordinary results.
Incidentally, we have a very active support group with some 400 members. You can access this via a link from our web site.
As far as other breathing techniques are concerned, if the technique has as its goal the raising of arterial CO2 level, then you're probably on the right track. But I'm not sure why anybody would want to go past Buteyko.
Take care
Peter Kolb BSc(Eng) MSc(Med) Biomedical Engineer
pkolb@wt.com.au ___________________________________________________
Free information provided by grateful ex-asthmatics
http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/buteyko.htm
__________________________________________________
CBI - 09 Apr 2004 20:15 GMT > >I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing > >techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation > >for a child and effectiveness. > > There are an awful lot of breathing therapies out there today. Most > of them have absolutely no physiological basis whatsoever. As usual, Petey starts off with the truth.
> However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without > question, stands out. Yep - B*t stands out as being one of the more flagrant scams.
> You are taught to increase average arterial CO2 > levels in a way that suites you best. Yes, they teach this despite the facts that CO2 levels are not abnormal in asthmatics not currently having an attack and that their technique has been shown to not affect them.
> There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of > which have produced extraordinary results. The studies show no objective benefit from B*t and some have been fraudulent.
 Signature CBI, MD
Evgenij Barsukov - 12 Apr 2004 22:57 GMT > > However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without > > question, stands out. > > Yep - B*t stands out as being one of the more flagrant scams. One thing I noticed about Buteyko technique is that I could not find in any web-site a "do-it-yourself" guide to it. Most of other techniques give a description, which kind of points out their non-comercial character - basicaly there is no way how anybody can make money out of it.
One example is the Strelnikova gymnastic, originaly developed to help singers to get their voice back after injury: http://www.strelnikova.i8.com/ Unfortunately that is all I could find in english, but there are russian sites with much more detailed description of all excercises.
> > You are taught to increase average arterial CO2 > > levels in a way that suites you best. > > Yes, they teach this despite the facts that CO2 levels are not > abnormal in asthmatics not currently having an attack and that their > technique has been shown to not affect them. I am not so sure about CO2 levels - I think I read (not in Buteyko site) that blood CO2 test is one of the suite of asthma diagnosis? Reason being continuously accelerated breathing even not during atack?
> > There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of > > which have produced extraordinary results. > > The studies show no objective benefit from B*t and some have been > fraudulent. Are you refering to studies in Kolb's web-site, or could you give me a links to other studies?
The studies on the web-site show significant benefits. For example the australian study (double-blind) shows 30% reduction of bronchodilators by the B-group without degradation of objective physiological characteristics of patients. If that is not significant, than what is? Note, that absence of any side-effects is guarantied, what you can never say about use of any medication. Of cause, there were some irregularities as the B-trainer was in contact with some of participants. But I dont see how that disqualifies the study, because he could not influence objective results (such as phisiological measurements). In fact, continious contact with the trainer could as well be agreed in original set-up of the test (as it best models typical usage of this training).
Regards, Evgenij
 Signature __________________________________________________ *science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com ----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
CBI - 13 Apr 2004 14:39 GMT > > > However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without > > > question, stands out. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > techniques give a description, which kind of points out their non-comercial > character - basicaly there is no way how anybody can make money out of it. But* practitioners claim that it is dangerous to do it unless under the supervision of a qualified instructor.
> One example is the Strelnikova gymnastic, originaly developed to help > singers to get their voice back after injury: > http://www.strelnikova.i8.com/ > Unfortunately that is all I could find in english, but there are russian > sites with much more detailed description of all excercises. I know what you are saying. I do believe that breathing techniques are useful for many purposes (including respiratory ailments) so it is not a complete disregard for the concept on my part. However, the practitioners of this particular technique make claims about the basic science behind the theory that are easily demonstrated to be false (as has been done numerous times on this group) and misrepresent studies both directly involving but* and about the general theory.
All the incredible statements are further cast into a negative light when you consider how much money they are making at it (and how they lie about it). Kolb was claiming to mot make money while selling videos on his website until people pointed it out and cried foul. Then the advertisements for the vidoes came down off the public websites but he has private mailing lists and websites that he makes available to some people so I am not hopeful that he is no longer selling them. He, of course, now denies that any of it ever happened.
> > > You are taught to increase average arterial CO2 > > > levels in a way that suites you best. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that blood CO2 test is one of the suite of asthma diagnosis? Reason > being continuously accelerated breathing even not during atack? During an attack they will be altered- first lower then right before collapse go high. I am referring to an asthmatic that is breathing comfortably and not having nay symptoms at the time (which is the vast majority of the time for nearly all asthmatics).
> > > There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of > > > which have produced extraordinary results. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you refering to studies in Kolb's web-site, or could you give > me a links to other studies? This has been discussed at lenght here. I suggest searching google for the studies he cites. If you need help let me know.
 Signature CBI, MD
FACE - 16 Apr 2004 00:31 GMT >> >I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing >> >techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >As usual, Petey starts off with the truth. Great. No physiological basis. How about a psychological basis.
The best I have heard it put is "freaking out over freaking out" (I suppose I should credit Dr. Dean Edell with that term.)
But I have seen it and i have also been there.
I have seen my wife start "chuffing" -- I call it. Grabbing rapid shallow breaths. Experience, real life experience since i've been there tells me that this kind of breathing does no good. For one thing it raises the anxiety and fear level -- the "Oh god, I'm dying" level. I've small doubt that levels attendant to those-- adrenaline and such -- are also raised. And....doing that actually makes things worse it progresses into "freaking out over freaking out".
A coupla hours ago, i did some shovel work in the garden. Shortly, I was exhausted besides being totally out of breath....fairly oxygen starved. With an albuterol MDI handy, as well as a compressor/nebulizer with liquid albuterol vials for it, I told myself I could get my breath back on my own.
Arms spread with hands on counter, I relaxed and took *measured* deep breaths. I *imagined* the breath going in, the diaphragm going down, the lungs inflating, blood/oxygen exchange....
Was it physiological? Of course some of it was. Was it psychological? A *lot* of it was.
This sort of thing does not always work.....I know that. Sometimes it does. I know that too.
I wonder, do you believe in the power of belief?
FACE
Richard Friedel - 16 Apr 2004 09:15 GMT .....
> Great. No physiological basis. How about a psychological basis. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > FACE There is "no physiological basis" to the so significant part played by breathing in Japanese/Chinese martial arts. Instead of "hard data" you get a hard fist. It all depends on a sensitive approach to breathing techniques and a power of belief. Think of the sporting folks' mental training as well. Breathing in the West is restricted to gas exchange as a concept apparently orbidding an understanding of asthma. Any different thinking is immediately censored as "alternative" and quacky for not complying with school textbooks.. Indulging in bhastrika (breath of fire, your wife's chuffing?) gives a definite kick, like a sniff of coke is said to do, but it is figured to be healthy as the recommended yoga (pranayama) approach to asthma and too much mucus in the airways. You have to pretend you are getting a fire going with bellows and paying attention to your effort, the sound of the air rushing, smoke from the fire being kindled etc. etc. Bhastrika is a bit like pelvic floor gymnastics (Kegel exercises) with (a) a vitalizing effect and (b) a reduction of airway constriction.
I guess bhastrika is like self-stimulation of some other sort (scratching). There is a sort of climax but it is healthy. The whole thing seems civilized, but enough to give a doc the fits.
I too spent a long time relying on a very occasional puff of reliever (less than one canister a year). When the asthma got worse a puff of reliever seemed to unlock my diaphragm and give me a deep breath. My asthma attacks were characterized by vain efforts to take a deep breath, as everybody knows. (I gave up the medication altogether by doing a sort of pursed lips breathing - heroic and possibly dangerous at first but it sort of paid off with time). Recent research shows that if healthy persons are prevented from taking a deep breath they respond to a diagnostic challenge with bronchoconstrictor like an asthmatic. However research remains stuck on its old course trying to get better medication, not better breathing exercises, as would seem logical.
Bhastrika leads to hyperventilation as well as strengthening the diaphragm, as you point out. It is also unsuitable for people with hypertension, although slow (diaphragmatic) breathing is definitely good to get blood pressure down by natural means, see recent research of Dr. Benjamin Gavish).
The so successful Oriental breathing techniques make better sense with their fanciful terms (chi, ki or prana) as a vital force supposed to be collected in the lower abdomen. It is mental training as well. It seems that asthmatics somehow just miss getting a real deep vitalizing breath by a hair's breadth. Medication, once the great hope, leads up the wrong path. Respectfully, Richard Friedel
P.S. see also http://www.i-breathe.com/thb12/Incentiv.htm
FACE - 16 Apr 2004 16:57 GMT >P.S. see also http://www.i-breathe.com/thb12/Incentiv.htm Interesting article.
Topically off-topic, when I was a kid I read an account of a British Officer in the nineteenth century in the then largely being colonized Caribbean. He was up against a local Voodoo witch doctor who could put "death curses" on local villagers who got out of line and they dutifully died within 3 days. The witch doctor put a death curse on the Brit.....and nothing happened. When asked why he did not die like the villagers did when similarly cursed, he said: "because I do not believe."
Another thing that strengthened my belief in the power of belief (and i do NOT think that it always works) is when i learned that in blind drug tests, the recovery or symptom cessation in some of those on placebos closely tracked those on the 'real' drugs.
FACE
jackmallory@webtv.net - 16 Apr 2004 15:32 GMT My most profound experience with breathing or lack of it comes from choking on food. Intense.
The cure is to stop. Stop everything. To command myself not to try to breathe, cough, sputter. But to relax. Just for a few seconds. In which time the body's automatic glandular response dilates the entire breathing apparatus.
This works. If you can do it.
Evgenij Barsukov - 12 Apr 2004 23:33 GMT > >I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing > >techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation > >for a child and effectiveness. > > There are an awful lot of breathing therapies out there today. Most > of them have absolutely no physiological basis whatsoever. Well, any physical activity (say, 30 minutes walking every day) benefits general health and feeling of well being. The problem with asthmatics is - they can not enjoy basic physical activity as it increases the risk of asthmatic atack. So, solution is to find a type of excercise that by virtue of its specific tasks excludes risk of astmatic atack and yet applies sufficient strain. Test if particular breathing excercise satisfies this criteria is extremely simple - take a group of patients, do the excercise with them (with inhalators ready), see if it causes 1) atack 2) sufficient physical stress (judged by physiological tests such as hart rate etc)
If answer to 1) is NO and to 2) YES - Bingo, you have a definetely beneficial excercise with solid physiological basis, because benefit of physical activity to health is statistically proven pretty much better then any other medical knowledge whatsoever.
>In fact > much of the breathing propaganda is responsible for a decline in our > health. Propaganda itself? I have hard time imagining that. Could you give me an example how giving people hope can decrease they health?
>In fact it is so bad that it has become part of our way of > life to advise people to "take a deep breath". I've actually heard > this sort of advice given to people with anxiety disorders. Since > increased breathing increases sympathetic tone and decreases > parasympathetic tone, it will just make the anxiety worse. And for > asthmatics that sort of advice could be dangerous. Well, this one obviously does not satisfy the criterion 1) in my above description.
> However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without > question, stands out. The Buteyko breathing technique is not just a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lifestyle factors that are responsible for your chornic > hyperventilation in the first place. Sounds good. Is there any link to "do it yourself" description of this system of excercises?
> There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of > which have produced extraordinary results. I visited your web-site and looked at the studies. I think results are quite good - but rather in line with outlined above more modest expections of increasing general well being plus in addition having a tool of stoping in some cases an oncoming atack without bronhodilator, which is quite remarkable. Certainly increased general health, resulting from long time excercises (6 month) specificaly improving the tonus of the lungs can also decrease number of attacks as such - in line with 30% decrease of bronchodilators use in australian study. Nothing of this proves that CO2 theory is correct (except for the time of actual broncho-spasm where it is definetely true), but as long as method itself works and has no negative side-effects - who cares?
> Incidentally, we have a very active support group with some 400 > members. You can access this via a link from our web site. I posted my question there, but so far group appears rather quiet.
> As far as other breathing techniques are concerned, if the technique > has as its goal the raising of arterial CO2 level, then you're > probably on the right track. But I'm not sure why anybody would want > to go past Buteyko. Well, my particular point of interest is the technique of Strelnikova, http://www.strelnikova.i8.com/ It used to be wide-spread in Soviet Union (passed 5 clinical trials, including one in pediatric clinik, paper was published in Rus. J. of pulmonology).
Good thing about it are: - there are free on-line resources (specially in russian, but also some in english)
- technique is easy for self-learning (I was able to teach 3 exercises of it to my 4 years old in 5 minutes, and 1 exercise is added each day until 12 total) The ease of execution is very important because even healthy people are known to be very lazy beings, hardly able to follow even medication regime not to speak about complicated systems of physical training. Unfortunately sick people are often additionaly demoralized which does not help. For that a simple system which shows obvious results (even if temporarily) could realy give the needed motivation to continue.
- it includes a method to stop an ongoing asthmatic attack
- it definetely does not cause asthmatic atack - 5 studies and ongoing following in russia show this convincingly, certainly no asthmatic would ever come again to a training that causes him an attack. What I noticed about all system of excercises, including Buteyko one as well as the yoga (link I posted before), that they indeed do cause some oxigen starvation during the excercise, that probably prevents hyperventilation and that might be the reason why physical activity does not cause an attack as it would usually do.
As for benefits - it definetely increases well-being by generic virtue of physical excercise, that is for sure. Studies show reduction and even eliminatin of medication with simultaneous decreas of number and severity of attacks, but it is hard to say if they are specific or not, because positive effect appear to be for many different illnesses. Common denominator for all of benefited conditions is resulting from them inability to make usual physical excercises, that is resolved by the breathing technique. It would be interesting to hear here some personal experiences from different techniques, including negative once.
Regards, Evgenij
 Signature __________________________________________________ *science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com ----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
Peter Kolb - 17 Apr 2004 02:51 GMT >> >I would prefer constructive discussion about which particular breathing >> >techniques have advantages vs. others, specially in ease of implementation [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >to health is statistically proven pretty much better then any other medical >knowledge whatsoever. I said that there is no physiological basis to most of the breathing therapies out in the community. Idid not say that exercise was bad for you.
Exercise is essential for good health and this is pushed very hard by Buteyko. I think your "Bingo" analysis is simplistic. Unless you have an exercise that by its nature limits your breathing, such as overarm swimming, any exercise is going to cause asthma in one who is genetically predisposed to EIA AND has low CO2 levels. The solution is to raise your CO2 levels so that exercise does not cause bronchospasm. That way you can exercise as much as you want without having asthma attacks. The beneficial effects of that exercise will then further inprove your health. Buteyko health management shows you how to achieve this.
I have seen the results of this in my own son, Alex. Formerly a very severe asthmatic, he is now a fitness freak. Yet I don't think he remembers what a puffer even looks like!
>>In fact >> much of the breathing propaganda is responsible for a decline in our >> health. >Propaganda itself? I have hard time imagining that. Could you give me >an example how giving people hope can decrease they health? Yes I certainly can give you an example. I've seen physical training instructors, for example, get kids to take deep breaths. Breathe in - out - in - out........forgetting completely that breathing is a naturally controlled activity. The rationale is to get fresh oxygen into the lungs and blow out all that stale air. There is no physiological basis for this whatsover. Getting excessive fresh air into your lungs does nothing for you. It won't increase your Oxygen saturation, but it will decrease your CO2, making it harder for the hemoglobin to release its Oxygen load to the tissues. So paradoxically breathing more actually results in less Oxygen to the body, leading to a feeling of breathlessness which you can't fix by breathing more.
I've also seen recommendations of deep breathing for people with anxiety and stress. What for? Why take deep breaths when these just lower CO2 and increase the body's sympathetic tone while decreasing the parasympathetic tone? It just makes your anxiety worse.
The notion that breathing more than you need to is somehow good for you is deeply ingrained in us and is going to be hard to eradicate. If people understood why breathing as little as possible is good for you, we would have a lot less 20th century life style diseases around today.
>> However, in amongst this mess there is one therapy that, without >> question, stands out. The Buteyko breathing technique is not just a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Sounds good. Is there any link to "do it yourself" description of >this system of excercises? Yes, there are several on our web site under "how to do it" and "getting started." But just be warned, in the same way that it is hard to learn Yoga or Kung Fu or Karate from a book, so too it is hard to learn Buteyko from a script. It sounds deceptively simple. But you can run into trouble if you're not careful, and make your breathing worse.
>> There have now been five documented clinical trials on Buteyko, all of >> which have produced extraordinary results. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of the lungs can also decrease number of attacks as such - in line >with 30% decrease of bronchodilators use in australian study. I'm not sure where you get 30% from. The decrease in bronchodilator consumption was 96%. They don't tell you this because they were embarrassed about their result. But they do give you the actual numerical values, and if you plug these into your calculator you will see that the reduction is actually 96%. And this is for a therapy that relies 100% on patient compliance.
The reduction in steroids was 49%.
The other studies have similar results.
> Nothing of this proves that CO2 theory is correct (except for the >time of actual broncho-spasm where it is definetely true), but as long as method >itself works and has no negative side-effects - who cares? There are always CO2 fluctuations throughout the day. If an asthmatic starts on a low base, then any further drop can get him into the CO2 range that will precipitate an attack. If he starts from a high base line CO2 level, then any transient drop will not be sufficient to precipitate and asthma attack.
>> Incidentally, we have a very active support group with some 400 >> members. You can access this via a link from our web site.
>I posted my question there, but so far group appears rather quiet. alt.support.asthma.buteyko is dead. You need to get onto the Yahoo group which is very loosely regulated. Unfortunately a.s.a.b attracts the same idiots as this group does which makes intelligent and supportive discussion really difficult.
There are now nearly 10,000 messages in the archives of the Yahoo support group. You'll find some interesting stuff in there.
It is quite possible that there are other Breathing techniques that raise CO2. I would not be surprized especially if they come out of Russia, because Buteyko was not alone in Russia pursuing the Chronic Hyperventilation theory. In fact, the Russians seem to have a much better grasp of the significance of CO2 than our doctors do. Buteyko started his work around 1950 and in 1985 it was given official government approval for use in hospitals following two clinical trials. I suspect that the principles were adopted by other groups who had a contribution to make.
If you find one of these other techniques works for you, then by all means stick with it. I would just caution that in making the decision on what to go with, you make sure that the technique recognizes chronic hyperventilation as the cause of the problem, and that the technique seeks to revers it.
<snip>
You said in another message:
>Of cause, there were some irregularities as the B-trainer >was in contact with some of participants. But I dont see how that >disqualifies the study, because he could not influence objective results >such as phisiological measurements). In fact, continious contact >with the >trainer could as well be agreed in original set-up of the test (as it best >models typical usage of this training). It is part of Buteyko practice for the practitioner to keep contact with his students. The argument was that there was more contact in the Buteyko group than in the Placebo group.
However, the subsequent NewZealand study specifically targetted this criticism and found that the results were not due to the increased contact between practitioner and students. A link to the study can be found on our web site.
Peter Kolb
pkolb@wt.com.au ___________________________________________________
Free information provided by grateful ex-asthmatics
http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/buteyko.htm
__________________________________________________
CBI - 18 Apr 2004 04:31 GMT > I'm not sure where you get 30% from. The decrease in bronchodilator > consumption was 96%. They don't tell you this because they were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The other studies have similar results. Yes, but the study was not blinded (although the authors initially tried to say it was) and the objective measures showed no improvement. IOW - the instructor told people to not use their inhalers and so they stopped.
>> Nothing of this proves that CO2 theory is correct (except for >> the >> time of actual broncho-spasm where it is definetely true), but as
>> long as method itself works and has no negative side-effects - who
>> cares? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > line CO2 level, then any transient drop will not be sufficient to > precipitate and asthma attack. He had it right. There is no proof of the CO2 theory.
Peter Kolb - 18 Apr 2004 05:19 GMT >Yes, but the study was not blinded (although the authors >initially tried to say it was) and the objective measures >showed no improvement. IOW - the instructor told people to >not use their inhalers and so they stopped. 1. I know from people who were there what happend. The control group and the BBT group had to be close in time and geography to rule out time and space variables. They obviously would have bumped into each other in the hospital. What happened was that the control group of sick, coughing miserable asthmatics watched the other group frolicking in high spirits, without asthma, and obviously looking hearty and healthy. That is the extent to which blinding was lost. After 3 months it was so obvious they could no longer feel confident that blinding had been maintained.
Let me remind you that the control group was given basic Physiotherpay relaxation classes and instructed in diaphragmatic breathing. The word "Buteyko" was never mentioned at all in either group.
Now seeing patients can simply drop off using 96% of their bronchodilators and 49% of their steroids withough loss in lung function, why don't you tell your asthmatic patiens to take 96% less Ventolin? After all, as you said, they just have to be told not to take so much.
>He had it right. There is no proof of the CO2 theory. Just get one of your asthmatic patients to wash out his CO2 by deep breathing for a while. See how long he can manage without getting an attack!
Peter
pkolb@wt.com.au ___________________________________________________
Free information provided by grateful ex-asthmatics
http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/buteyko.htm
__________________________________________________
CBI - 18 Apr 2004 16:57 GMT > >Yes, but the study was not blinded (although the authors > >initially tried to say it was) and the objective measures [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > months it was so obvious they could no longer feel confident that > blinding had been maintained. Hmmmmmm..... there are a few problems witht his story.
1) This study came out years ago. You have attempted to misrepresent it here many times and the issue of the (not initially admitted to) lost blinding has been raise dmany times. Yet, you have never related this bit of personal experience before this. It strains credibility.
2) That would still not account for why it was initially mis-described as a double blinded study.
3) The mere fact that the two groups ran into each other and one was noticable better would not by itself ruin the blinding. Everyone involved with double blinded studies (including the patients) know there is a treatment group and a control group.
> Now seeing patients can simply drop off using 96% of their > bronchodilators and 49% of their steroids withough loss in lung > function, why don't you tell your asthmatic patiens to take 96% less > Ventolin? After all, as you said, they just have to be told not to > take so much. Long term control was not assessed in the trial. The fact that they can stop their meds and not immediately end up in the ER does not mean they will not be worse off in the near future.
> >He had it right. There is no proof of the CO2 theory.
> Just get one of your asthmatic patients to wash out his CO2 by deep > breathing for a while. See how long he can manage without getting an > attack! Lack of offered proof noted.
 Signature CBI, MD
Peter Kolb - 18 Apr 2004 05:31 GMT >Yes, but the study was not blinded (although the authors >initially tried to say it was) and the objective measures >showed no improvement. IOW - the instructor told people to >not use their inhalers and so they stopped. I forgot to mention, both the control and the BBT groups were given exactly the same instructions in reltation to the use of medication.
You keep forgetting that there was a control group involved in this study.
Do I really have to ask the obvious question? OK here goes: Why was the control group not able to reduce bronchodilator useage the way the BBT group was?
Incidentally, if you don't want a reply, just pepper your own reply with your usual lies and insults.
Peter
pkolb@wt.com.au ___________________________________________________
Free information provided by grateful ex-asthmatics
http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/buteyko.htm
__________________________________________________
CBI - 18 Apr 2004 17:04 GMT > >Yes, but the study was not blinded (although the authors > >initially tried to say it was) and the objective measures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I forgot to mention, both the control and the BBT groups were given > exactly the same instructions in reltation to the use of medication. That is the part many of us doubt. We know that But* practitioners believe that the meds are part of the problem and so (dangerously) either directly tell or strongly imply to the patients that they need to get off them. We also know that the blinding was not maintained. You story about what consituted the loss of blinding is not credible (which is not at all surprising given your track history of lies). I have to wonder what went on in those treatment sessions.
> You keep forgetting that there was a control group involved in this > study. Yes, a control group that actually got worse during the treatment (meaning that much of the "improvement" was actually just not gettsing worse) which is uncommon in a researchs tudy where the "standard treatment" is supposed to be optimized. This is yet another irregularity of the study that causes most experts to view it with caution.
> Do I really have to ask the obvious question? OK here goes: Why was > the control group not able to reduce bronchodilator useage the way the > BBT group was? They weren't told to.
 Signature CBI, MD
Richard Friedel - 09 Apr 2004 06:37 GMT > This sounds like a nice overview of the life of an asmathic > and with a self-achieved happy end [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Regards, > Evgenij Hi Evgenij,
By breathing you mean something different to breathing as normally understood here, namely exchange of gases. Yoga means not only that but also the accompanying effect on the sympathetic nervous system, which opens airways. Think of breathing on the tanden (Chinese tantien) which seems to be the basis of some Oriental lifestyles and world views. Its significance is proved by martial art practices. Western medicine remains aloof, probably because such breathing sounds too much like mind over matter. Regards, Richard Friedel
Evgenij Barsukov - 12 Apr 2004 23:41 GMT > > This sounds like a nice overview of the life of an asmathic > > and with a self-achieved happy end [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Western medicine remains aloof, probably because such breathing sounds > too much like mind over matter. Regards, Richard Friedel I could only agree - if some technique offers improvement of both physical and phsychical well-being without causing an attach, it should be even more beneficial (even if not specifick to asthma). I just dont see how this can harm or even be neutral because it is well statistically proven that regular physical excercise + good psychical stage is the most beneficial medicine ever known, that is - if it does not kill you. So if some technique can guaranty the later point, that's a winner. In some cases it might not work for social engineering reasons. It is just very difficult for any person to do something systematically, specially if it involves unusual settings. That could be a reason for failure of some trials (although I never could find any actual reference to a failed trial). Specially for solving this problem some phycho-support must be very beneficial, which I understand is provided in yoga from the guru. Is this correct, or it is possible to self-execute?
Regards, Evgenij
 Signature __________________________________________________ *science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com ----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
|
|
|