Buteyko Method
Key topics
The Buteyko method, a breathing technique developed by Konstantin Buteyko, has sparked a lively discussion among enthusiasts and skeptics alike. One commenter shared a personal anecdote about their great-grandfather, who learned the method from Buteyko himself to alleviate asthma symptoms, prompting warm responses and sparking curiosity about the technique. As commenters exchanged recommendations for books like "Breath" by James Nestor and "Oxygen Advantage" by Patrick McKeown, they also shared their personal experiences with breathwork, including increased heart rate variability and reduced respiratory rates. With some users touting the benefits of free apps that teach the Buteyko method, others expressed skepticism, citing a lack of concrete medical evidence, highlighting the ongoing debate around the technique's effectiveness.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
13m
Peak period
22
0-6h
Avg / period
6.1
Based on 49 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 19, 2025 at 4:52 PM EST
19 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 19, 2025 at 5:05 PM EST
13m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
22 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 22, 2025 at 2:29 PM EST
17 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Konstantin must have learned that from Guybrush Threepwood!
Reason why I'm asking: the book contains many techniques, and I'm curious about what's working best for people.
https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Advantage-Scientifically-Breat...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m8jIhQyiDY
Good stuff honestly, helped me a lot
From the "Medical Evidence" section, it seems I'm not missing much.
If you demand extensive peer reviewed medical evidence of some specific quantified outcome before doing any activity in life you will miss quite a lot of valuable things that can’t be easily quantified or measured, or funded academically.
Arguably, the lack of medical evidence tells us that this is in fact not a valuable thing.
2. There needs to be some way to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Otherwise we all drown beneath the waves of lying charlatans. So how do we differentiate what works? "Evidence" seems like a reasonable criterion.
Evidence is an excellent criteria, but only if you look more broadly so you're not ignoring most of the actual evidence available to you. All you really need to try something personally is decide that the likely benefit, given the limited information you have, outweighs the likely risk.
If you're sufficiently convinced it's not dangerous, the reasonable standard of evidence needed to consider trying it might be quite low.
Scientific studies are strong evidence of something really narrowly specific that they tested like "does X cause Y," but most decisions in life need to be made from things like direct observation, and anecdotes, because the scientific studies rarely exist to provide the full picture, even a good study on "does X cause Y" might tell you absolutely nothing about if "X causes Z" even if Z is more important than Y.
If there is something like a breathwork technique developed by a long dead soviet physician that regular people all around the world have been using for 60+ years and consistently reporting that it offered them some tangible benefits and didn't harm them, this is evidence that it might be worth a try.
For things like breathwork, I usually do carefully and broadly look at things like personal reports from regular people, on e.g. forums that are unlikely to have any motive to lie. If there's a strong consistent pattern of some harm or benefit, that can be quite useful evidence, even without any formal studies.
Except almost none of the most valuable things I've encountered in life had any convincing medical evidence.
I am an academic scientist that designs and reviews studies all day long, so I am very steeped in the practicalities and limitations of biomedical research, and as such have completely lost any illusion that biomedical research is in a state where it can guide most of my personal decisions in a useful way- maybe it will be someday. If all of your personal decisions are guided by peer reviewed literature in it's current state, you'll probably be sicker, and have an empty dull life compared to someone that just uses common sense, tries things, and pays attention.
For one, you have to pretty much assume there is some specific benefit you can physically quantify, and that it will apply to almost everyone in your study population, both very unlikely to be true in cases like studying breathwork.
For example, I'm a person that tends to be pretty uptight and overstressed, what you might assume in scientific terms is "sympathetic activation"- and there is a lot of breathwork research showing that almost anything that has an extended exhale can shift you into parasympathetic activation, where you calm down and relax. There is lots of research on this, and it arguably covers Buteyko, but they won't use that term in the article title, because it's more general than just Buteyko alone.
Now, I don't need some peer reviewed study to just try Buteyko for a few minutes, and immediately feel calm and relaxed, and see that I can suddenly notice the colors around me, and feel joy, when I couldn't before. If a massive peer reviewed study proved to me that this does not happen to most, or even any other people except me, why would I care about that at all? Does it mean I shouldn't do it? What if I have a problem not enough of those people have to make it show up in the statistical analysis, or my body responds in a way most of theirs do not?
There are huge limits to how meaningfully you can generalize from scientific studies about populations of other people, to yourself. Moreover, you have to choose up front what outcomes or effects you will look at in a study, and if our biological understanding can't even guess at the outcome that would have been useful to look at, the study is doomed to miss everything.
Sit down, and try it- or don't, but don't assume you can learn ahead of time if it will be worthwhile or not by looking on Google Scholar.
I recommend getting an ultrasound of the relevant veins/arteries, it's a relatively cheap and safe way to confirm what kind of problems you have.
Hey, even if it only helped 5% of your recovery, that’s still good. It’s not like there’s any medicine or treatment that fixes 100% of a problem. It’s like saying “pickleball is a treatment for obesity, but doesn’t cure it”
This seems like extreme nonsense. How light would you have to exercise to only breathe through your nose? I had an ex gf that tried to do this when we would go running and it was a disaster.
In other words, the point of exercise for buteyko people isn't just exertion, it's also about respiratory training. Nasal breathing becomes a natural guideline/modulator for long term improvement.
—
I think Buteyko suffers from a marketing problem wherein it sounds really “eastern medicine”. I think it actually can be super beneficial to people, assuming they have the patience and discipline to commit to it for many months. It’s not easy and I think the success rate is so high because the people that seek it out are pretty determined.
I strongly encourage people research myofunctional therapy also if you snore/have sleep issues or find yourself out of breath often. It’s like physical therapy for your airway where you do lots of exercises regularly over months. I’m not even trying to advertise here, just trying to spread the word in case it helps someone.
links: Assorted research papers - https://happymyo.com/2024/02/11/research-papers-on-omt/
A sample of what the exercises look like, I am not affiliated with this site and these are the ones without props - https://www.singhealth.com.sg/tests-procedures/myofunctional...
Yes, i have read James Nestor's book "Breath" and did not find it illuminating.
A better way is to read some good books explaining the techniques of Pranayama. There are plenty (the two books "Prana and Pranayama", "Prana Vidya" published by Yoga Publications Trust, Munger, Bihar, India are good) so buy a few which appeal to you.
Here are some suggestions (based on my practice);
1) Do not practise the breathing exercises when you are feeling hungry, too full, tired, hyper, sleepy etc. Your practice should be done only when you are feeling comfortable and calm.
2) Do the exercises in a well ventilated place.
3) Do not do any breath holding exercises in the beginning for at least a few months. You should only practise inhalation/exhalation with various lengths and force as prescribed in the techniques.
4) Generally, the ratio of lengths of Inhalataion:Exhalation should be 1:2
5) Generally, Inhalation/Exhalation should be "subtle" and in a "thin stream" unless the technique calls for force, but should not hurt the nostrils.
6) Both before and after the practice massage your whole body lightly with your hands; particularly the forehead, temples, the scalp.
7) The following techniques are enough to give you immediate benefits; a) Kapalabhati b) Bhastrika c) Nadi shodana (alternate nostril breathing) d) Deep Inhalation through the Nose followed by slow Exhalation through the Nose e) Deep Inhalation through the Nose followed by slow Exhalation through the Mouth. *Note: The first two will clear your sinuses/nostrils making the subsequent ones easy, the third one will stabilize you, and the last two return you to normal mode.
People should get some popular books on Pranayama and then also get the original books so that they can see what the original text actually says. Follow all the cautions mentioned before starting the practice, do everything gently and proceed slowly. If you do it properly, you will see immediate results in terms of self-feeling within a week. You will also see external signs like clear skin, whites of the eyes becoming clearer, gait/body becoming lighter etc. They are all mentioned in the texts which indicate to the student that he is doing the practice correctly.
For example, here is a Tibetan Yogi demonstrating a specific type of exercise+pranayama. It is dynamic but not violent - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BESrdlf-cPg
https://breatheless.substack.com/
https://breatheless.gumroad.com/
https://x.com/breathelesss
My big takeaway from it was that breathing and neurological state are deeply connected and actually relaxed, natural, healthy breathing (and the corresponding state of the brain and nervous system) is something that most people have probably never even experienced unfortunately. We all think our state is normal, but I assure you, it is very far from the state where your control pause is 40s-60s or more, it's a radically different experience.
Also the nuance of what the control pause and how to measure it correctly is lost on I would say, even most people who attempt to learn Buteyko. The control pause is how long you can, under NORMAL breathing, suspend breath with ZERO discomfort, and then PERFECTLY RESUME normal breathing without any change from before. Buteyko claimed that healthy breathing had a 40+ second control pause. Which if you think about it, is a super long time. And I got there sometimes, it's a major learning experience about what deep alignment and relaxation of the brain/nerves can really feel like.
Space-cabin Atmospheres: Oxygen toxicity (1964) (google.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25883728
The Haldane Effect and the Bohr Effect are the central findings that explain the transportation and exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_effect / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect
People who hyperventilate exhale too much carbon dioxide, which disrupts the acid/alkaline balance of the blood and makes it harder for the body to use the oxygen available to it.
The Apollo capsules were originally spec'd to use a mixed gas atmosphere. When the capsule got too heavy they switched to using a pure-O2 atmosphere. After the Apollo 1 fire they switched to using an atmospheric mix (80/20 N2/O2) at launch, which gradually changed to pure oxygen as the flights progressed.
Treatment with pure oxygen is not helpful for sick people:
Mortality/morbidity: acutely ill adults liberal vs. conservative Oxygen Tx (2018) (thelancet.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993262
I typed up some notes about oxygen toxicity: https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilat...
Medicine decided that the antidote to oxygen toxicity didn't need to be used anymore in the mid-1950's.
I think the major part of what makes it useful is just adding resistance for breathing. It helps to train the breathing muscles, just like any other resistance training.
Carbon Dioxide as a Stimulant for Respiratory Function —https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2020/7/28/carbon-dio...
The comment about it being neither desirable nor achievable is so funny to me! It really walks the line between complete dismissal and polite confusion.
I didn’t understand the history at the time - but it stopped me going to hospital, I ended up being able to do a controlled hold (no discomfort) of around 1:30 min and a max hold of just shy of 5 mins.
So for me it had a big impact.
I stopped in my 20s and now I am no where near able to get those numbers.