Talk:Pranayama

Whitesplaining?
I do not get, why this article is not based on actual sanskrit texts. This is simple embarassing. It is a completly separate matter, wether Macdonell and Monier Monier-Williams spread the knowledge of Pranayama throughout the european world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:720E:900:A558:5187:183A:8B50 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia's articles have to be based on secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * James Mallinson and others cited in the article, including Bhattacharyya and Taimni, are experts in Sanskrit; Mallinson and his colleagues have translated many Hatha Yoga texts from Sanskrit, and their knowledge of the subject stems from that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph about Hatha Yoga risks is not up to MEDRS standards
This paragraph cites just one study, which is a review of CASE STUDIES. However, MEDRS requires a review of RANDOMIZED CONTROLED TRIALS. Therefore this study is not up to MEDRS standards and should be removed, as well as the paragraph that is based on it. To quote Chiswick Chap, "WP:MEDRS requires not just a single RCT but a systematic review of multiple RCTs" Robinesque (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not what it says. Reviews can be narrative, and they can be of RCTs. What we have here now is compliant; that doesn't mean the evidence is especially strong, or that the practices could not be better tested and analysed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. Where is that in wp:medrs, that a review of 76 case studies is compliant? Robinesque (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy calls for review articles. Its intent is to ensure that only reliable evidence is used. Actually, so far all the evidence given in the section is at best weak; I think we'll do better without any of it, as the slight impression of science is mainly spurious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing. Robinesque (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)