x-ray peat
Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 2,343
By holding all other variables constant across experiments. This is a standard way to remove the effects of confounding variables.How did they isolate the confounding variables by simply stating they conducted the study in an office-like setting?
I didnt say causality was established but rather that these studies are gradually making the case. This may be helpful.Nothing causative is established. Nothing remotely probable. What studies do you refer to? I still don't see anything resembling making your case.
Hill's Criteria for Causality
- Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
- Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
- Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]
- Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
- Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.[1]
- Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
- Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".
- Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".
- Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.
I am using the term hypoxia or hypoxic to describe a reduced O2 concentration of inhaled air and a subsequent reduction in blood oxygenation. Both bag breathing and buteyko have that effect. I agree that the increased CO2 helps liberate what O2 remains in the blood but am only questioning as to what point the risks outweighs the benefit.There is no hypoxia at all. It's not even intermittent hypoxia. It's just increased carbon retention with Buteyko and bag breathing. I'm sure you're well-versed with the effect of carbon dioxide on tissue oxygenation, and you have stated that. It has a positive effect, without which oxygen is not released to the tissues. All Buteyko and bag breathing is doing is increasing tissue oxygenation - albeit for normal, healthy subjects.
Where does hypoxia even come in here?
Just asking questionsI think you're getting ahead of yourself by making the possible harm scenario stand out over the benefits of Buteyko and bag breathing. I won't say what you're saying isn't possible, but the body has a mechanism in place to keep that from happening. Can you kill yourself by withholding your breath? If there's high blood acidity, we hyperventilate to expel CO2 from the lungs.
Last edited: