To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/08/01 19:21
Subject: Re: [K-list] Re: Diaphragmology
From: Richard Friedel
On 2003/08/01 19:21, Richard Friedel posted thus to the K-list:
Greetings Nina,
On the question of muscle action, see for example
http://www.jcu.edu/biology/RESP1.HTM
It states
"To inhale normally, the external intercostals contract, lifting the rib
cage up and out. The diaphragm contracts, losing its domed shape and
flattening out. The overall result of these two actions is an increase
in the volume of the thoracic cavity. This results in a lower
intrathoracic pressure than atmospheric pressure. Gases move from areas
of high to low pressure. Air moves down the respiratory passages and the
lungs expand.
In a normal exhalation, all of the actions are passive. The diaphragm
relaxes, returning to the domed shape. The external intercostals relax,
lowering the rib cage. Theses actions result in a decrease in the volume
of the thoracic cavity, leading to an intrathoracic pressure which is
greater than atmospheric pressure. Air moves from the area of greater
pressure ( the lungs) to the area of lesser pressure ( the atmosphere)
and you exhale.
In forced expirations, (when you feel out of breath from an activity),
two other muscle groups force air out of the lungs. The internal
intercostals forcefully pull the rib cage down and the abdominal muscles
contract, increasing intra-abdominal pressure pushing upward on the
diaphragm. Both of these actions increase introthoracic pressure ,
forcing air out of the lungs."
I think we should agree on this.
"Relative strengths of the chest wall muscles" by M. B. Hershenson (J.
Appl. Physiol. (1988) 852-862) is relevant. On page 859 he talks about
the biceps and triceps as antagonists and maintaining the configuration
of the arm. On the following page he writes
"During a maximal inspiratory effort, if the diaphragm was stronger
than the inspiratory muscles of the rib cage and was allowed to contract
maximally, the thoracoabdominal configuration might be drastically
altered. According to our model, maximal activation of the diaphragm
during a maximal inspiratory effort (without simultaneous activation of
the abdominal muscles) would result in unacceptable distortion of the
structures of the chest wall and is therefore prevented by the
respiratory controller."
This is all in the context of more complex considerations, but it does
to me at least state that the diaphragm on the one hand and the rib cage
muscles on the other are antagonists.
This is echoed by "Recruitment of some respiratory muscles during three
maximal inspiratory maneuvers" by S. Nava et al. (Thorax 1993 702-707),
see page 706:
"This may mean that the diaphragm - the "stronger agonist" - is limited
in generation of force by the action of the inspiratory rib cage
muscles, which is the the "weaker agonist".
The only point to be proved is therefore that the abdominal wall muscles
are (unexpectedly) not the antagonists of the diaphragm (enabling the
diaphragm to contract without upper airways resistance) although they
are expiratory muscles.
Nava and Hershenson do not say that they are not antagonists.
However the finger between the lips maneuver provides strong evidence.
If you increase the size of the gap around the finger during an inhale
performed with the rib cage muscles, widening the gap does not stall the
inhale, whereas it does just this during an inhale done with the
diaphragm only.
During diaphragmatic breathing in REM sleep the pharyngeal dilator
muscles are relaxed increasing the tendency to snore, i.e. increase
upper airway resistance.
One of the reasons I'm sticking to this notion is that the importance of
strong diaphragm action would be emphasized for good sleep and in fact
preventing breathing stalling altogether in the night!!
Can you give me a reference for the extremely intriguing control of lung
lobe inflation by the conches?
One point about air flow control by the nose that nobody seems to have
the least inkling of anywhere is the ability to so abruptly change the
amount of negative pressure in the pharynx. The action is so rapid, it
cannot be due to swelling and unswelling of the mucosa in the nose. Try
an experiment with measuring the suction. Take a yard or so of thin
hose, thinner than infusion hose. You might use transparent insulation
coaxed off a piece of wire. You will find that it is so easy to suck up
water from a glass to a height of a foot or more. Breathing feels more
or less normal. Normally however only a head of a few cms. of water is
involved
I am generally completely in agreement with your preference for
"non-technical" and rather more spiritual language. This is a superior
approach. However certain errors (too much school physics) are an
obstacle for westerners and have to be overcome.
How do you know that you (or somebody else) is breathing
diaphragmatically? For me diaphragmatic breathing means placidity and an
enjoyable feeling from the diaphragm. The finger between lips stuff
plays an important role in priming and maintaining it. A feeling of
resistance in the nose is of course the more natural method.
I help with taekwun-do instruction on breathing. The Korean head of the
gym uses the finger between lips method, which I taught him. I hit on it
of my own accord about three months ago, but have now learned that it
has been taught in a German clinic for at least two years. Regards,
Richard
To get a reminder of your password or adjust your subscription, visit:
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/mailman/listinfo/k-list_kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.