The type of bow does not change an archer's respiratory function

1 study · 160 archers measured

There is a single study, and it measures a single thing: peak expiratory flow, the top speed at which you can push air out, in 160 Indian university archers during the 2014 national championships. The values sit close together: 492.5 litres a minute with the Indian bow, 496.4 with the recurve and 508.3 with the compound, a gap of about sixteen litres in five hundred, around three per cent. The author reads it as a difference caused by the equipment, but reports no statistical test, and redoing the calculation from the published means and standard deviations leaves the difference just short of the threshold that would normally make it significant. That null reading, though, is our own recalculation, while the author concludes the opposite, and the registry counts it neither for nor against: the question remains not studied. Two large limits remain: the compound archers were on average a couple of years younger than the others, and the study appears in a journal with questionable editorial standards.

Also phrased as: "breathing and bow type"; "compound archers' lungs"; "lung capacity in archery"; "peak expiratory flow in archers"

In practice

You hear that each bow asks for a different breath, the compound with its long aim at reduced holding weight, the recurve and the traditional bow held at full weight, and that over the years this leaves its mark on the chest.

Evidence

Status history

  1. 1990 Not studied Nobody in the registry's bibliography had yet compared the respiratory function of archers shooting different bows: the question has no data.
  2. 2015 Not studied The only study arrives: 160 Indian university archers measured during the national championships. Peak expiratory flow runs from 492.5 litres a minute with the Indian bow to 508.3 with the compound, a gap of about three per cent that the author puts down to the equipment without any test, and that narrowly fails to reach significance when recalculated from the published means. The null reading is our own recalculation, the author concludes the opposite and the journal has questionable editorial standards: the study stays as context, and the question remains not studied.

Related

Related articles

Research lines

Cite
APA

Campagna, M. (2026). The type of bow does not change an archer's respiratory function (Version 3). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/health/bow-type-respiratory-function

BibTeX
@misc{campagna2026_tipoarcofunzionerespiratoria,
  author = {Campagna, Matteo},
  title = {The type of bow does not change an archer's respiratory function},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
  url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/health/bow-type-respiratory-function},
  note = {Version 3; accessed 2026-10-16}
}

Other claims in this domain

See all claims on health and recovery