[joemi]

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.

[dndn1]

People say that it's a practice.

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! </>

[riffraff]

> teeth have a full profession of study and development that the everyday act of breathing doesn't have

Aren't pneumologist that profession?

I mean they don't seem to have focused on breathing patterns but I'm doubtful dentists have focused on chewing patterns either.

[pete762]

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