I wonder how much is the specific technique vs. the fact that something like 4-7-8 requires you to pay attention to and focus on your breathing? Have their been any studies where participants were asked to do tasks while also box breathing etc?
I wonder the same thing too. Especially since there are all kinds of different techniques that people recommend. And because the ideal length of time for the different phases must surely vary from person to person, since it's a physiological thing and everyone's body is different. It really seems to me (disclaimer: I'm a layperson) like the important thing is just focusing on measured breathing, not the exact one-size-fits-all measure.
A few years ago I was determined to practice, and it was hard, and then it became easy, auto-relaxing, like a cheat.
I lost that practice and now it's hard again.
I think GP is right to question technique vs. attention - I think we don't know much about the answer.
But a point I recall in Nestors book is that there isn't really a lot of scientific study on breath - there is much more study on specific diseases, and e.g. teeth have a full profession of study and development that the everyday act of breathing doesn't have (even though these might be highly related!).
<Opinionated> Some of the best references about breath today are not scientific, but written in the oldest books that survived in different cultures - and anyways, how much does the specific mechanism matter?
Watch this space though - science is catching up! </>
I think the important thing is only that you exhale longer than you inhale. Inhaling activates SNS, exhaling PNS, the latter is for relaxation. So the more you can tilt that ratio towards exhaling while still breathing comfortably the better
