I just want to address the implication that if the instructor did not explain this in the normal flow of the course, the instructor must suck.
The OW course strongly emphasizes that divers should never hold their breath and should continuously breathe. The is what divers need to know. They do not need to know WHY inhaling does not create the same problem as holding the breath. If they are curious and ask exactly the way it was asked in the thread, the instructor should be able to explain it, but that does not mean it should be part of routine instruction.
In instructional design, the goal is to make sure students absolutely know the essential learning points and are pretty darn good on items on the next lower level of need. Once you get down to the items that would be classified as "nice to know," you have to question why you are teaching it. Interference Theory teaches us that time spent learning the things we don't need to know interferes with our ability to learn the things we do need to know.
For example, new OW students need to know about pressure changes upon descent, and that is a standard part of OW instruction. Students are not, however, typically required to know that it is called Boyle's Law, because they don't need to know that.
Another good example is modern first aid instruction. I taught first aid more than 50 years ago, and the standard first aid class was far, far more complete than the standard first aid course today. That is because the people designing standard first aid courses determined that they were teaching too much, and students were not performing first aid when it was needed because they could not remember everything. They therefore dropped the stuff that was less critical in the hope people would remember the critical stuff and use that knowledge when needed.