Yes, it's weird. It's like the authors did the experiments, analysed them, understood that their research suggested that slow breathing was having the exact opposite effect of all that the psuedoscience/wellness/psychobabble community have assumed ...

... and then just ran with "yay, slow breathing!! Transformative, amirite??"

And sure, "transformative" is not technically incorrect. But the linguistic implications of that word are almost always positive/beneficial, whereas in this case the transformation is overwhelmingly negative.

At best, the manuscript's language is sloppy; at worst, it's misleading. Very odd. The finding that this technique is actually bad in most cases (every situation where additional risk-taking behaviour is bad) is so interesting. Odd that they almost try to cover it up.