Talk:Pranayama
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pranayama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why is the article "Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials" not wp:meds?
[edit]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)
Wiki Education assignment: Ecstasy A Global History of the Search for Transcendence
[edit] This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2025 and 7 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CharlesTalley (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by CharlesTalley (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class Yoga articles
- Mid-importance Yoga articles
- WikiProject Yoga articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- High-importance Hinduism articles
- B-Class Hindu philosophy articles
- High-importance Hindu philosophy articles
- B-Class Altered States of Consciousness articles
- Low-importance Altered States of Consciousness articles