Breathwork expert Jamie Clements says we're not ‘breathing wrong' but we could all be ‘breathing better'
As a breathwork coach, Jamie Clements founder of The Breath Space often hears a familiar line: 'I can't be breathing wrong because I'm alive.' And while technically true, he says it misses the point. 'Yes, we're all breathing in a way that keeps us alive,' he tells me. 'But doing it a little bit better would do us some good.'
After just five minutes of guided breathwork with Clements, I get it. That tight feeling I've been carrying in my chest all day softens, my thoughts are locked in on the breaths I'm taking and I can visualise, strangely, shades of purple behind my closed eyes. When I open them, something has shifted. It's subtle, but I can feel it.
That shift, he says, is exactly what breathwork is meant to offer. It's a conscious recalibration of something we do all day without thinking. But as the practice gains traction in the wellness world, and TikTok algorithms churn out breathing 'hacks' by the hour, many struggle to understand how this practice fits in with our day-to-day lives.
The principles of breathwork
''The breath' is really this catch-all umbrella term that over the last five to 10 years, particularly in the UK and Western society, has come to encapsulate any way that we can use our breath to shift our state and work with how we think, feel and operate on a physical level, mental level, emotional level and spiritual level,' Clements tells me.
To cut through the noise, he's developed a framework that helps people understand the practice without feeling overwhelmed. 'I teach breathwork in three pillars,' he says. This approach is accessible – the idea is that we can all start somewhere.
The first, and most foundational pillar, is what Clements calls functional breathing. 'How we breathe moment to moment, unconsciously, throughout the day. Can we improve, not perfect, our default patterns to support better health?' he asks. 'It's less about mastering a technique and more about unlearning habits that might be quietly taxing our systems, like mouth breathing or shallow chest breathing.'
The second pillar is what many people think of when they hear the word 'breathwork' – nervous system regulation via intentional exercises with the breath. This includes everything from box breathing to alternate nostril breathing, deliberate patterns that shift how we feel.
'This is what I believe most people think of when they hear 'breathwork', which is breathing techniques for a specific outcome. So changing the speed, depth, rhythm and ratio of the breath in a certain way with a desired outcome in mind,' says Clements.
'You can use the breath like an accelerator or a brake. Speed it up to boost focus and energy. Slow it down to calm the nervous system. It's breathing with intent.'
The third pillar is where breathwork becomes transformational. This is where Clements says we can access altered states of consciousness, process trauma and explore emotional healing. It's powerful terrain, and not without risk.
'This part of the work can bring up a lot. It requires care. It's not something to dabble in lightly,' he says. 'But it's also where the biggest shifts can happen.'
The benefit of the breath
He speaks from experience. The practice of breathwork didn't come to him as a hobby or curiosity. It came as a lifeline.
'I found breathwork at a time when I was really struggling with depression, anxiety and panic attacks. It wasn't overnight, but over time, my life changed. And it's still changing. That's the thing with this work, it evolves as you do,' he tells me.
He recalls his first breathwork class, seven years ago. 'That class changed everything. My teacher is someone that I have always looked up to since getting into this space and I'm fortunate that now we're colleagues. It feels full circle.'
While breathwork helped Clements improve his own life and set him on a path to help others make sense of theirs, he's wary of the idea that there's a 'right' way to breathe, or that we're all doing it wrong.
'It's a slightly ugly comparison, but I always compare it to posture. My posture's not perfect. Your posture's not perfect. I don't know anybody with perfect posture and I probably don't know anybody with 'perfect breathing'. That being said, if I improved my posture by five or 10 per cent, if I improved my breathing by five or 10 per cent, I would feel better. The main thing to say is don't beat yourself up over this idea of doing it wrong, but do pay more attention to it and understand how you can do it better.'
You might have heard a guest on a biohacking podcast make bold claims about how 90 per cent of people are breathing sub-optimally, a figure Clements considers exaggerated.
'Now, we can look at that through a certain lens, but I do think what even those high extremes suggest is that we could all be doing it a little bit better and it would do us some good. Even if you improve your breath by 5 or 10 per cent, you'll feel better. It's not about doing it right, it's about doing it better,' he says.
This gentle, non-dogmatic approach is part of what makes Clements a compelling guide in a wellness world that can often feel rigid and perfectionistic. He's particularly critical of performance optimisation that often leads to overwhelm and the idea that there's a 'right way' to be well.
'I saw a stat in the Lululemon wellbeing report that said 45 per cent of people report wellness burnout,' he notes. 'People are exhausted from striving to be well.'
'I've been banging this drum for a good six months to a year now – this obsession with wellness is stressing people out and actually all the biohacks in the world aren't going to overcome the stress of striving for perfection with your wellness.'
That exhaustion, he argues, is partly the result of what he calls 'information overload'. In the world of health and wellness, we seem to be inundated with data, protocols and biohacks but ultimately starved of embodiment and true connection, making it hard to process all the information we're served.
'I think post covid we've done a great job of awareness gathering and information gathering. But I see so many people kind of paralysed in that space and going, 'what do I do with all of this information?' I think what we're gonna see come next is this huge shift towards living the insights, living the understanding rather than, you know, comparing our wearable data.' says Clements.
'A lot of people are also going, 'how do I fix me? I am broken.' And actually a huge amount of it is actually just cutting yourself some slack and going, it's okay to want to move forward and grow, but not at the cost of hating yourself in the process.'
Finding a way in
While breathwork is inherently accessible, its origins are somewhat mystic and esoteric which sees many label what is actually a functional health tool as 'woo'.
'The deeper practices can become ceremonial or overly spiritual – white robes and wide-brim hats – which can alienate people,' says Clements. 'That's fine if it works for you, but it shouldn't be the only way in. The more transformational end of the spectrum can feel out of reach but I want the powerful end of this work to be for everyone.'
'I actually wrote a piece called 'breathwork is broken' about how the commodification of breathwork is both inevitable and problematic. You don't need fancy tools or a big budget to do breathwork but we are in a growing pains phase.
'It's the classic cycle of Western wellness: we get excited, over-commercialise it, then realise we need to course correct,' he says. 'Breathwork is at that turning point. We need stronger ethical standards, better training and more integrity.'
If you're breathwork-curious, Clements recommends starting simply. 'The first two pillars, functional breathing and nervous system regulation, are safe to explore on your own. Slowing your breath, trying short patterns like box breathing, that's low-risk and high-reward.'
For deeper emotional work, however, he urges caution. 'That's where you want to be discerning. Treat it like finding a therapist. Don't just follow a big-name Instagram account. I think one of the big dangers of modern social media and wellness is that we think that just because someone's got a lot of followers means they're good at what they do.'
Instead, ask where someone trained, look for word-of-mouth recommendations, and trust your gut. 'Some people you'll feel safe with. Others you won't. That's okay.'
As for his own wellbeing practice, Clements practises breathwork every day. 'I try to start each day with stillness and silence. So that could be just a simple unguided meditation for 10 to 30 minutes, just in silence. It might be more centred around the breath, it might be a guided meditation. I like to start from a slow pace to set the tone for the day. So that's that's a big thing for me and that's pretty close to being a non-negotiable.'
He also trains in the gym, does Brazilian jiu-jitsu three or four times a week and occasionally opts for the saunas and cold water therapy that so many athletes and influencers in the wellness space rely on for focus, healing and recovery. 'But I'm not strict,' he says. 'I try to give my nervous system space to ebb and flow.'
'Tools like Whoop and Oura – they're a great tool, but a terrible master. If you've never been in touch with your body, they can help. But eventually, you have to learn to listen to yourself. We're all different. So I think if they work for people, then then great as long as they're not being led by them.'
Ultimately, Clements hopes people come to see breathwork not as a quick fix or a trend, but as a tool for deeper connection.
'The nature of the practice is that it is innately accessible,' he says. 'I think that in part is why everyone's talking about it or everyone seems to be talking more about it. It's so accessible, but at the same time it can go to such depths that there's a lot of different things that we can do within this world of breath.
'I think that's the beautiful thing with this work. My goal with everybody that I speak to and work with is to make this an integrated better part of their life that stays with them. It's not a practice to be done, it's actually just a way of living that stays with you, that actually opens you up to a broader experience of life. '
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Peter Krykant obituary
The drugs policy campaigner Peter Krykant, who has died suddenly aged 48, advanced the cause of the harm reduction movement through a transformative act of civil disobedience. Fitting out a van as a mobile safer drug consumption space and making it available to Glasgow's most vulnerable homeless addicts broke the law. And it also – eventually – broke the stalemate around UK drugs policy, propelled Scotland's drug deaths crisis further up the political agenda and, most importantly, saved lives. Krykant's law-breaking plan coalesced in February 2020 after he attended what he saw as another talking shop – a Scottish government conference focused on drug deaths, which took place 24 hours before a UK government summit on the same subject, at the same Glasgow venue. It seemed to him a ludicrous show of escalating tensions between the two administrations. 'The conferences were the final straw, and the fact that [a drug consumption room pilot] is being used as a political football,' he told the Guardian a week later. 'As a person who went through my own trauma – drug use and street homelessness issues many years ago – I cannot stand back.' Within days of announcing his plan to purchase a vehicle and customise it as a mobile safer-injecting suite, Krykant had raised more than £2,000. He was immediately sacked from his job as an HIV outreach worker at the charity Waverley Care. Undeterred by the looming global Covid pandemic, Krykant recognised that, as services contracted, the homeless drug users who congregated around Trongate in Glasgow were even more in need. So he struck out in the midst of lockdown, first in a minibus nicknamed 'the Tank' and later in a converted ambulance, providing clean water, needles and swabs, as well as supplies of naloxone, the potentially life-saving drug that reverses the effects of opioid overdose. Rules included using your own drugs, and agreeing to an overdose intervention if needed. Writing in the Guardian, Krykant later explained: 'Overdose prevention services are an internationally recognised way of reducing drug-related harms. It benefits everyone by supporting the most vulnerable and saving taxpayers' money on ambulance callouts, hospital admissions and council clean-up teams.' The local police largely tolerated his activity, although he was charged in October 2020 for obstructing officers attempting to search his van – the charges were later dropped. He continued operating until May 2021. More than 1,000 injections were supervised, and nine overdoses reversed. 'It was the trust people had in Peter, the cup of tea and the Mars bar, that really helped them and is hard to quantify,' said the MSP Paul Sweeney, who became a close friend when the pair volunteered together at the van. 'He proved all the naysayers and the procrastinators wrong. He never said it was a silver bullet but Peter knew firsthand the particular risks for people who inject on the street and saw that this intervention could directly save lives.' Krykant was always insistent that addiction should be understood in the wider context of poverty and inequality, a message he took around the doorsteps of his local Holyrood constituency of Falkirk East when he stood for the Scottish parliament elections in May 2021. A Guardian film, which followed his campaign, captures his younger son, aglow with pride, explaining to the producers: 'I've got three reasons you should vote for my dad: because he's honest, reliable and he listens to people's suggestions.' But the responsibility he evidently carried for every individual he helped, the memories they stirred of his own trauma as well as escalating public scrutiny, took their toll and Krykant relapsed. He had talked openly about darker currents in his childhood in the village of Maddiston, near Falkirk; trauma and sexual abuse that would lead him to start taking drugs when he was 11. He left school with no formal qualifications, and by his late teens he was sleeping rough and injecting heroin. But eventually he found support to live drug-free, and worked successfully in sales for over a decade, first in Brighton, and later returning north of the border, where he subsequently trained as an addiction support worker. During this time he married and started a family, taking market research work to fit around caring for his two young sons. Krykant had continued his advocacy work in recent years, passing the van on to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation and embarking on a tour across the UK. Lately he worked at the harm reduction charity Cranstoun, where he developed an overdose response app called BuddyUp and represented the organisation at events around the world. When the UK's first legal drug consumption room, the Thistle, opened its doors in Glasgow this January, there were many who drew a direct line from his minibus to its airy vestibule. Others felt his contribution had been sidelined to make way for more mainstream voices, or that his vulnerabilities had been exploited by those who desired the frisson of his lived experience for their campaigns. This winter, say friends, Krykant found himself at his lowest ebb. His marriage had collapsed, he had lost his job and he was struggling to support himself, worrying about the impact this had on his sons. Martin Powell, who drove the van on its UK tour, said: 'He was the catalyst and without him we might still be waiting. Without question there are people alive today who would not be without Peter Krykant. It's an absolute tragedy that he isn't one of them.' Krykant is survived by his sons. Peter Krykant, campaigner, born 13 November 1976; died 9 June 2025
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
Legalising assisted dying would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo', parliament has heard, but opposition MPs insisted this is not a 'now or never' moment. The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Sunscreens RANKED - from best buys to those to avoid at all costs... as consumer watchdog reveals one 'ineffective' £28 cream could pose safety risk
A £28 sunscreen, marketed as 'perfect for the whole family', has failed a safety test carried out by Which?—despite claiming to be 'especially suitable' for children. The revelation may have left consumers asking which sun creams they can actually trust. Consumer watchdog Which? tested 15 popular SPF50 and SPF30 products from high-street names and supermarkets, using strict international safety standards. Each was assessed for ultraviolet (UV) protection and SPF protection, and rated for ease of use by a panel of volunteers. Two were labelled 'Don't Buys' after failing key tests, while seven earned a 'Best Buy' status, scoring highest overall. Another two were also labelled 'great value' options, for offering people a cost-effective option to protect against the sun's UV rays. To trial the creams, scientists applied a small amount on volunteers' backs, before shining a lamp on the patch to simulate the sun's rays. The time it takes for the skin to become red was then measured. In another test, scientists took a sample of the cream and spread it onto a glass plate to measure the absorption of UV radiation directly. To pass, the sunscreen needed to provide at least one third of the claimed SPF. For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will take 30 times longer to damage your skin compared to no protection at all. Here we reveal the full list of 2025 test results, ranked from most to least effective. Lidl Cien Sun Protect Spray SPF30 The bargain product was given the 'great value' seal of approval by the watchdog, after the panel found it passed both key tests, was easy to apply and 'smelled great'. They did, however, note it felt 'a bit greasy on skin' after application. £3.49 Shop Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF30 Which? said the product offered 'excellent UVA and UVB protection'. UVA and UVB protection are both crucial in sunscreen because they address different types of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, which can raise the risk of skin damage and cancer. UVB rays are primarily responsible for sunburn, while UVA rays penetrate deeper, causing premature aging and wrinkles. £5.50 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion SPF30 The product passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £8.65 Shop Sainsbury's SPF30 Moisturising Lotion The consumer watchdog had no major concerns with the product it said and provides exactly the level of sun protection that it claims. £5.75 Shop Superdrug Solait Sun Spray SPF30 Which? said the product 'delivers on SPF and UVA claims' and 'no major issues' at all. £5.50 Shop The factor 30's to avoid Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 Price: £3.75/200ml After testing the product twice, Morrisons sun spray failed to provide the 'claimed level of protection from UVB rays', Which? said. After informing Morrisons of its results, the supermarket giant told Which? it was looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing. Ultrasun Family SPF30 Price: £28/150ml Ultrasun's product passed the SPF test but didn't meet the minimum required UVA level for an SPF30 product in either the initial or repeat test. Responding to the findings, the company said: 'Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. 'As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. 'Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. 'We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance.' Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Sun Spray SPF50+ Garnier's SPF50 spray passed both tests and was 'easy to apply', the watchdog said. But it noted, the product—which is sold at the likes of Asda, Boots, Morrisons and Sainsbury's—was an expensive option. £8.00 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+ One of the most recognisable products on the market, Nivea's SPF50+ spray passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £7.00 Shop Sainsbury's SPF50+ Moisturising Spray Lotion The watchdog said Sainsbury's spray provides the level of sun protection it claimed it does and there were no major downsides to the product at all. £5.75 Shop SPF50+ Children's Recommendations Childs Farm SPF50+ Sun Cream Fragrance-Free Which? said the product offers 'excellent sun protection' and passed both key tests. The sunscreen, sold online on Amazon as well as in Boots, does 'feel a bit greasy', it noted. £12 Shop
