Breath: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20:
| isbn = 978-0-7352-1361-6
| goodreads_rating = 4.14
| goodreads_rating_date =
| website = [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547761/breath-by-james-nestor/ penguinrandomhouse.com]
}}
Line 31:
== Chapter summary ==
''This outline follows the Riverhead hardcover edition (26 May 2020; ISBN 978-0-7352-1361-6).''<ref name="PRH2020">{{cite web |title=Breath by James Nestor: 9780735213616 |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547761/breath-by-james-nestor/ |website=Penguin Random House |publisher=Penguin Random House |date=26 May 2020 |access-date=19 October 2025}}</ref><ref name="OCLC1138996691">{{cite web |title=Breath : the new science of a lost art |url=https://search.worldcat.org/title/Breath-%3A-the-new-science-of-a-lost-art/oclc/1138996691 |website=WorldCat |publisher=OCLC |access-date=19 October 2025}}</ref><ref name="MarmotTOC">{{cite web |title=Breath : the new science of a lost art |url=https://
=== I – The experiment ===
Line 69:
👎 '''Criticism'''. In the ''{{Tooltip|Wall Street Journal}}'', {{Tooltip|Sam Kean}} faulted the book for not applying enough skepticism to “dicey” evidence and for underplaying placebo effects. <ref name="WSJReview2020">{{cite news |last=Kean |first=Sam |title='Breath' Review: Eager Breather |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/breath-review-eager-breather-11590953832 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=31 May 2020 |access-date=19 October 2025}}</ref> Psychiatrist {{Tooltip|Kate Womersley}}, writing in ''{{Tooltip|The Spectator}}'', argued that Nestor leans heavily on anecdotes and makes overbroad claims about {{Tooltip|nitric oxide}} and {{Tooltip|CO₂}}, cautioning against turning “enhanced breathing” into a commercial self-optimization trend. <ref name="Spectator20200801">{{cite news |last=Womersley |first=Kate |title=We all breathe – 25,000 times a day – so why aren’t we better at it? |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-all-breathe-25-000-times-a-day-so-why-aren-t-we-better-at-it/ |work=The Spectator |date=1 August 2020 |access-date=19 October 2025}}</ref> A trade article in ''{{Tooltip|Sleep Review}}'' welcomed the book’s accessibility but warned that popular practices like mouth-taping should not displace clinical diagnosis and care. <ref name="SleepReview20201204" /> Beyond reviews, a 2023 meta-analysis of randomized trials found small-to-moderate benefits of breathwork for stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, while urging caution due to moderate risk of bias and heterogeneity in studies. <ref name="SciRep2023">{{cite journal |last=Fincham |first=Guy William |author2=Clara Strauss |author3=Jesus Montero-Marin |author4=Kate Cavanagh |date=9 January 2023 |title=Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=13 |pages=432 |doi=10.1038/s41598-022-27247-y |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9828383/ |access-date=19 October 2025}}</ref>
🌍 '''Impact & adoption'''. ''{{Tooltip|Fresh Air}}'' devoted a full episode to Nestor on 27 May 2020, amplifying the book’s core ideas to a national audience. <ref name="FreshAir20200527">{{cite web |title=How The 'Lost Art' Of Breathing Can Impact Sleep And Resilience |url=https://freshairarchive.org/
== Related content & more ==
=== YouTube videos ===
{{Youtube thumbnail | Gr2XFEDPGf0 |
{{Youtube thumbnail | f6yAY1oZUOA |
=== CapSach articles ===
| |||