Yoga is science in its own right. But inadequacies on the part of those championing it is indeed perplexing.
Be that Yoga or Ayurveda, its experts continue to live in the past, using terminologies that are unsynchronised with those of the modern science.
Modern science accepts everything that is objective. It uses terminologies which are demonstrable.
In Ayurveda we have concept of cough, pitta and vayu, the imbalances whereof bring diseases curable by re-establishing its balance.
In yoga, the whole edifice is sustained on twin principles bearing varied names which materially and substantially imply prana and chetna, energy and consciousness.
Even prana has five broad divisions, prana, apana, samana , vayana and udana. Its imbalance is said to fetch equivalant consequence as in case of the above said triplet imbalance recognised by ayurveda.
Now coming to the point, is it not incumbent upon the experts dealing with or dwelling on the above ancient science of ayurveda and yoga to speak out what exactly these terms mean in terms of the terminologies that the modern science may recognise or interpret.
To be specific, i do kapalbhati pranayama or anulom vilom/ nadi shodhan, or mool bandh or udyan bandh or agnisar. It yields great experience, but that is what may be bracketted as subjective experience. 
Objective approach requires us to state exactly that which occurs in the body system. It is not enough to speak out in terms of prana or chetna or five pranic components. What is required is to state as to what happens when i breathe in, or retain the breath inside or outside, so on and so forth, but in terms of oxygen absorption, energy generation or transmission, metabolism, etc.
Likewise, the use of the ancient terminologies, in other areas is worthless,without indicating its equivalent terminologies interpretable in terms of modern science.
Your help in the above exploration is solicited.