Why this exists
Breathing sits in an awkward place between disciplines. Respiratory physiologists can describe exactly what the diaphragm does and rarely write for the public. Breathwork teachers write constantly for the public and often describe mechanisms that do not exist. In between, a person with a blocked nose, a stressful job and a bad night's sleep is left to choose between a textbook and a video.
We started in 2024 with a simple editorial rule: every claim should be traceable to something a reader could check. That rule turns out to be harder to follow than it sounds. It means saying "the evidence is weak here" in the middle of an article that would read better without it. It means declining to recommend a practice we happen to like. It means writing about what the nose does without claiming it will change your life.
Six essays is a small number, and it is deliberate. Each one is long enough to include the mechanism, the trials, the caveats and the practical version, and short enough that a person might actually finish it. We add to the collection when there is something worth adding, not on a content calendar.
Editorial standards
These are the rules we apply to every piece before it is published. They are also the rules we use when deciding whether to correct something after publication.
Mechanism before recommendation
We do not publish a practice we cannot explain. If the proposed mechanism is implausible, the practice may still be worth trying, but the article has to say so rather than invent a pathway.
Evidence graded, not gestured at
Every essay carries an evidence label and a reference list. Where a claim rests on a small unblinded trial, the text says that in plain language rather than hiding behind "studies show".
Limits stated in the same breath
Each article includes a section on who should not do the thing, and what the research cannot answer. This is not a legal footnote. It is part of the argument.
Corrections dated and described
Factual errors are corrected within one working day of verification. The change is described at the foot of the article with a date, rather than made silently.
Who writes here
Three people, with clinical review on anything involving lung mechanics or gas exchange. We are not a clinic and we do not take advertising.
Mira Halvorsen
EditorFounded Breath Wellness after eight years editing health features. Writes on respiratory physiology and the gap between what clinics measure and what patients feel.
Nadia Farouk
Respiratory physiologistSpent a decade in pulmonary function testing. Reviews every essay on lung mechanics and gas exchange before publication.
Jonas Reyes
Staff writerCovers sleep, stress and behaviour change. Suspicious of any protocol that promises a fixed outcome in a fixed number of days.
Editorial review
External readersTwo clinicians read each finished draft for accuracy. They are not paid by any manufacturer and are named in the article's metadata.
Getting in touch
Corrections, questions and disagreements are all welcome. We answer editorial mail within five working days, and we publish substantive corrections rather than quietly editing them away.