1

This News Report says that the boy mentioned had 75% of his diaphragm removed due to cancer, however as a result of strong abdominal muscles now has 100% lung function.

Is this really feasible, or is this the media exaggerating, since after all, breathing is not the primary function of abdominal muscles, so reaching 100% on them seems odd...

| improve this question | | | | |
  • define "100% function". The ability to breathe seems plausible, especially with the 25% of diaphragm still in place. – John Dvorak May 22 '15 at 7:35
  • Welcome to Skeptics! What would you consider an acceptable answer to look like (in either direction)? – Oddthinking May 22 '15 at 12:27
  • @JanDvorak I think a lung function of 100% would mean perfectly functioning lungs right? – user26335 May 22 '15 at 17:00
  • @Oddthinking An acceptable answer would link to a study or some sort of reliable\academic source for abdominal muscles taking up the role of the diaphragm or something on those ines – user26335 May 22 '15 at 17:03
  • "Perfectly functioning" is no meaningful medical category. There are literature values of how much lung function a man of a certain age, weight and height should have. If he should have 5 liter vital capacity and he has 5,5 liter vital capacity that's 110%. If he has 4,5 liter that's 90%. The guy in question might very well have had more than 100% before the operation. – Christian May 24 '15 at 20:01

You must log in to answer this question.