Breathing experiment

[Nick]

Hi all

I always struggled with breathing. Here's an experiment I played with
that was very useful in re-setting my entire notions of what breathing
actually IS.

I'd always thought of breathing as a process of sucking-in and
blowing-out air. But you only need to do a bit of elementary reading in
biology to see that what causes us to inhale is atmospheric pressure -
the air is pushed into us by the atmosphere, it's not sucked in.
(Nothing sucks in nature, including vacuums, as physicists like to
joke.)

So here was a completely new experience for me, to think of inhalation
as me just allowing air to flow into my mouth and nose, in exactly the
same water might if I were underwater and opened my mouth and nose. It
allowed me to remove all of the muscular doings I'd previously been up
to in trying to 'suck' the air in properly. And then to think of
exhalation as simply the structures surrounding your lungs being
elastic, and expanding with this in-rushing air up to a certain limit,
and then rebounding, forcing the gases out. Again no muscular doing
required, the entire process is self-regulated by the pressure of the
atmosphere and the elasticity of the respiratory structures.

Does experiementing in this way help anybody else in improving their
own breathing? I think these concepts are pretty much correct
biologically as well (though there are probably some extra details that
don't detract from the main picture), so it's an example of how having
a correct conception of how we work can actually improve use.

Cheers
Nick

[yue...@gmail.com]

Hi, Nick,
This is my first entry in discussion as a support to your new design of
the forum. Personally, I enjoy reading the exchanges silently as it
takes much energy just to follow the dialogues. Sometimes, the remarks
could be quite confusing as they can be read in very different ways
(and English is NOT my first language). I sincerely hope that all
writings are precise and clear enough and focus only on one subject
matter at a time. So much so about the background.
I love the idea that "Nothing in nature sucks" as it reminds us (at
least me) to allow the smooth in-flow of air during inhalation.
However, if breathing is JUST the balance between atmospheric pressure
and elasticity of the organ structure, the natural outcome should be
eventually (I do not mean death, though it is a natural event) a static
balance between two. The movement cannot perpetual by itself.
I have little background of biology and anatomy, but the above idea
seems self-evident to me. So, something more should be put into the
equation. I can only voice out my doubt but do not have any positive
input. Maybe you can elaborate a little bit.
Thank you again for your thoughtfulness of setting up an alternative
forum.
TC

[Nick D]

Hi TC

 

It was another Nick who set up the forum (it seems you thought it was me, but I wasn't sure).

[However, if breathing is JUST the balance between atmospheric pressure

and elasticity of the organ structure, the natural outcome should be
eventually (I do not mean death, though it is a natural event) a static

balance between two. The movement cannot perpetual by itself.]

 

The main thing I was trying to emphasise was that the actual movement in and out of breath is caused by a non-doing sort of process (inhaling is atmospheric pressure, exhaling is elasticity of muscle).

 

It's true that if the pressure on the inside of your chest is equal to atmospheric pressure, no air moves and you don't breathe. The traditional theory is that we contract our diaphragms and the muscles between our ribs, which increases the volume in our chests and therefore reduces the pressure to below what's outside, causing the air to rush in from outside. And breathing out is the reverse, the diaphragm and the muscles between the ribs relaxing, which increases the pressure inside our chests to above what's outside, and this forces the gases out.

 

So from this traditional viewpoint there does need to be a do-ing (although it's automatic) to start the whole cycle off, that first expansion of the diaphragm and ribs to drop the pressure inside you. Although I wouldn't mind betting that the traditional picture misses something here - it doesn't talk a lot about how much that first expansion is in fact assisted by the air as it begins to rush in, and also it's a fairly static two-component model, with no sense of what happens at the two ends of this cycle. Breathing is a continuous process, but this traditional model says nothing at all about the 'apogee' points if you like at the beginning and end of each breath. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the process becomes self-sustaining once you've started it - that first expansion is like a starter motor, which then becomes unnecessary as the alternating pressure and elasticity drives the cycle. But that's just a hunch - I should see if there's anything in the literature!

 

Cheers

Nick