Good Practices Deserve Good Explanations
- Kym Burls
- 15 hours ago
- 5 min read
I recently came across an article by Dr Ranulf Crooke titled The Physiology of Breath.
The opening hooked me immediately:
"Some of the more popular claims are based in solid physiological reality. Others are not. The two are not currently well distinguished in wellness conversations."
It put into words something I'd been thinking for a while.
As breathwork has grown in popularity, so too has the number of explanations attempting to justify why it works. Some are supported by a growing body of research. Others remain plausible hypotheses. And some appear to have become accepted largely because they have been repeated often enough that few people stop to question them.
Crooke's article isn't arguing that breathwork doesn't work. It asks a more useful question:
What does the evidence actually support?
While that sounds like an academic question, in practice it influences which advice we follow, which claims we trust and how we decide what's worth our time.
Useful Practices And Accurate Explanations Are Different Questions
Many conversations around breathwork blur the line between outcomes and explanations. When a practice produces a positive outcome, it becomes easy to assume that every explanation attached to that outcome must also be true.
Yet usefulness and explanation are different questions. A breathing practice can be beneficial while our understanding of why it works remains incomplete. Some explanations appear well supported, others remain promising but preliminary, and some are repeated with more certainty than the evidence currently justifies. In many cases, "we don't fully know" is not a weakness in the science but the most accurate reflection of where the evidence currently sits.
Three Examples Worth Paying Attention To
One of the main reasons Crooke's article resonated for me is that it challenges several common science-coded claims in the breathwork space. In each case, there’s a gap between what is claimed, what the evidence currently supports and what remains uncertain.
CO2 Tolerance
Over the last several years the idea that becoming more comfortable with elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can improve breathing efficiency, resilience and performance has been widely shared in the breathwork space (just read some of my older articles).
While it’s clear that changing CO2 levels triggers strong sensations in the body (hold your breath and see what you feel), what’s becoming less certain is whether breathing practices that deliberately elevate CO2 actually increase our biochemical tolerance. Because how we respond to CO2 is a conditioned response, what now seems more likely is that ‘CO2 tolerance’ work has more to do with changing how those sensations are interpreted. Meaning that someone who previously experienced air hunger or higher CO2 as threatening may gradually learn to experience it as familiar, predictable and manageable. Their experience changes… so their response changes.
Chronic Over-Breathing
Another idea that has become deeply embedded within breathing teaching is the notion that modern humans chronically over-breathe (i.e. that how much and how fast we breathe has increased).
Dysfunctional breathing patterns clearly exist. Rapid breathing, upper chest breathing and habitual over-breathing can all influence physiology, perception and performance.
However, the broader claim that respiratory rates have steadily increased over time, or that chronic hyperventilation sits at the root of a wide range of modern health complaints, appears far less ‘settled science’ than is often presented (guilty your honour).
That doesn't make over-breathing irrelevant. Breathing patterns matter. The challenge is determining how much they matter, in what contexts they matter and through which mechanisms they influence outcomes.
Nasal Breathing
This one may ruffle some feathers…
Nasal breathing may be one of the clearest examples of a useful practice becoming attached to an increasingly long list of explanations.
Breathing through the nose provides genuine physiological benefits. The nose filters, humidifies and warms incoming air. It also contributes to nitric oxide production, which plays important roles in the respiratory system. And as I’ve mentioned in this article, there’s reasonable evidence showing nasal breathing improving cognitive performance.
Those benefits stand on their own.
At the same time, some outcomes commonly attributed to nasal breathing may be influenced by something else entirely: slower breathing.
Many people naturally breathe more slowly, more quietly and with less overall ventilation (volume) when breathing through the nose. Separating the effects of nasal breathing from the effects of slower breathing is not always straightforward.
A person may experience the benefit regardless. Understanding what is producing the benefit is a separate question.
Asking Better Questions
Up until two years ago, I suspect I would have read the article very differently.
Like many people entering the field, I was searching for the best technique, the best system and the best explanation. Finding a modality that appeared to work often felt like finding the answer.
As my education expanded and my experience working with people grew, that certainty became harder to maintain.
Two people can perform the same breathing exercise and have very different experiences. One person may benefit from measurable physiological changes. Another may gain a sense of agency during a stressful period. Someone else may discover that sensations they previously interpreted as threatening are actually safe. The exercise may be identical, yet the pathways contributing to the outcome can be very different.
Over time, I found myself asking different questions:
What is this practice trying to achieve?
What problem is it solving?
Under what conditions is it most useful?
What assumptions am I making about why it works?
The more I explored, the less interested I became in finding the "right" framework. Different systems often emphasise different mechanisms, yet many seem to converge on similar underlying principles. The language may differ, but the patterns often look surprisingly familiar.
The fitness industry learned this lesson long ago. New exercises, training systems and coaching philosophies appear every year, yet the same foundational movement patterns continue to sit underneath most effective programmes.
Breathwork often follows a similar pattern. The language, explanations and frameworks may change, but many of the underlying principles remain surprisingly consistent.
Crooke's article reinforced something I've become more comfortable with over the last few years.
The further I explore this field, the less interested I am in defending explanations and the more interested I am in understanding outcomes.
There is enough evidence to support many of the benefits people experience through breathing practices while still leaving room for curiosity, refinement and further discovery.
The challenge is resisting the temptation to become more certain than the evidence allows.
Sometimes the most honest answer is: "We don't fully know yet."
---------
If you'd like to read the article that prompted these reflections, you can find Dr Ranulf Crooke’s original piece here: https://wellfounded.health/insights/the-physiology-of-breath
---------
