This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
is just a Daniel Goleman essay. 67.81.102.176 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I had added this piece of info previously, intending to locate some source material for it, but in the interim Teardrop deleted it. I strongly suggest that it (or some similar statement) be reinserted with the appropriate suggested citation since without it, and especially since the article is specifically related to health applications and clinical studies, it is absolutely necessary to make a statement like the one I suggest: (Since there are various types of meditation, the effects of each must be considered independently. What may be true of one procedure, may not apply to another. Therefore, one would be wise to consider carefully the research done on each specific type of meditation, recognizing that findings on one type may not be automatically transferable to other types. References: http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/Research/ComparisonofTechniques/index.cfm ) Of course, the article should also remain unbiased, neither intentionally or unintentionally appearing to favor any particular type of meditation. Sueyen 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I thinkg it would be good to have a graph comparison on oxygen consumption with deep sleep and also if possible its rejuvinating effects as compared to ordinary sleep or REM dreaming sleep.-- Jondel ( talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I have begun to look at this article and wish to work on it slowly - given time restraints - I am especially concerned about this quote:
"In 1976, the Australian psychiatrist Ainslie Meares reported the regression of cancer following intensive meditation (published in the Medical Journal of Australia)"
I cannot see how this can remain without a reference to the actual research paper. As I recall some of Meares findings were a little "controversial" I will give it a day or so and if no one can find will remove before beginning the "bulk" of the work on this. The7thdr ( talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
add at Adverse effects phrases from Kundalini Syndrome,or mention Kundalini Syndrome Zenhabit ( talk) 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The title of the article is too long and it seems to combine two or three topics into one. Any ideas or suggestions? Barkeep Chat | $ 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think particularly the section on perception can be split off, as well as the section on meditation and drugs, and then the article renamed to Meditation and Medicine or something like that. Snake666 ( talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to specify what type of meditation is being observed. makeswell ( talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Starting the article with an explanation of the different categories of meditations, as they are reported in peer reviewed scientific papers, will help avoiding a bias toward any specific kind of meditations. I am surprise that the article begins, after the Introduction, by a section only on Mindfulness meditation, which is not even followed by corresponding sections for other kind of meditations. The different categories of meditation should be discussed first, before we write a section on any specific kind of meditations. After that, the information that is available in the published literature for each category should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 ( talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As of now, I'm removing those sections which may prove hazardous to people's health. I'll place them here. For example, studies that show that meditation does not have an effect, or that the studies which were analyzed did not have enough rigor, do not mean that meditation has no effect - the lack of knowledge of something does not imply that it does not exist. Also, a "quick search", on scholar.google.com should seriously not equate to medical advice. This could prove very negative, and is against Wikipedia's policy on health-related articles. Let us all aspire to refrain from the sort of work as is shown below.
A 2007 review article found no reliable effect of mindfulness meditation on anxiety or depression. [1] A 2006 article found "The strongest evidence for efficacy was found for epilepsy, symptoms of the premenstrual syndrome and menopausal symptoms. Benefit was also demonstrated for mood and anxiety disorders, autoimmune illness, and emotional disturbance in neoplastic disease." but noted also that "Clear and reproducible evidence supporting efficacy from large, methodologically sound studies is lacking." [2] A 2009 article found, "substantial disparity between what is espoused clinically and what is known empirically about the benefits of mindfulness practice". [3] Meditation was found to alleviate depressive symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia. [4] Participants enrolled in a 10-week mindfulness meditation program showed improved scores on test of depression and associated stress. [5] makeswell ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As to whether the studies are accurate or not, I am not going to spend too much time researching and discussing this debatable question, nor should I as someone who is not an expert. However, I will mention that below this Talk section there is another in which there is a quote from a scientific study, also found on scholar.google.com, in which it was found that there was a significant chance that practitioners of meditation would accurately guess which picture was chosen before being told the answer, that they displayed precognition and had psychic powers. Furthermore, the studies certainly do not encapsulate the full spectrum of the research on meditation, and are therefore, most certainly, incomplete. Therefore one could realistically imagine somebody foregoing the practice of meditation after reading the information which I had removed from the public Wikipedia. As to how it is medical advice, it isn't, but it is medical information and therefore may become the basis of a decision regarding the health of a person. I am surprised really that I would have to write this response, I would feel it to be rather unnecessary to explain the potential harm that could arise from posting this sort of information without any certifiable experience in the field or a more full study. I would guess, though this is not something that I would hastily post online, that meta-analyses of a large number of studies, done by a large and reputable organization, for example one such study as the National Institute of Health meta-analysis of the scientific literature on meditation, which found that there were a very large and substantial number of studies which did have methodological flaws and were therefore unreliable, would be a more reliable basis on which to found any sort of practical decision regarding one's health. makeswell ( talk) 08:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Section Meditation and drugs says:
What "many" Western religions? Indigenous American religions? Otherwise there are about c:a 3-4 western religions (nearly not eligible for "many"), i.e. Christianity, Islam, LDS and Jehovas Witnesses. Regarding Islam I don't know, but the other ones don't use meditation (except that Swedish Lutherans are beginning to import buddhist methods without changing them). "Many" is not likely, unless we speak of indigenous Americans. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted that sentence first mentioned because it was unsourced and those religions that do use tea generally don't equate it as an "aid" in meditation, it's just like a tea break in England or something. Also, there's more examples of real drugs and meditation sort of things there now.--makeswell 05:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
This study, entitled, "An Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists" was found on scholar.google.com via a search for, "shamatha".
It found that, "Age and years of meditation practice correlated significantly with the psi scores (Pearson r = 0.52, p , 0.05). This suggests that, as one practices meditation, psychic awareness begins to manifest more reliably." Three meditators were able to accurately predict which one of a set of four images was selected by a computer, before receiving any feedback from the computer in regards to its selection.
The .pdf is here: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_roney-dougal.pdf .
I feel like this study has relevance for this Wikipedia page. makeswell ( talk) 08:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Do not read the following if you value your time.
If anybody can decipher the following quote they will win the grand prize of being able to use it in the article. Before I let you go buck wild with it, first I'd like to mention that the first reference supports the name of a researcher, lol, which is not something that necessarily has to be cited in my experience.
"Among the side-effects that have been reported we find those mentioned by Craven [1]: uncomfortable kinaesthetic sensations, mild dissociation, feelings of guilt and, via anxiety-provoking phenomena, psychosis-like symptoms, grandiosity, elation, destructive behaviour and suicidal feelings [2]."
The second reference is just an excerpt from a secondary source about a Craven study, and when you look up the actual study, in the synopsis you read, "It is hoped that improved understanding of meditation will contribute to an increased acceptance and use of these practices as aids to psychotherapeutic change and will facilitate meaningful research regarding meditation," which simply does not go along with the secondary quote above. So I'm removing this part, and posting it here in part so that I do not have to feel guilty for removing such a large section of the page which is cited. :/ makeswell ( talk) 22:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
this is a good article to add to this page, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944261/ and also a study of the 'attentional blink' pheonomenon, http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2007/SlagterMentalTrainingPLoS.pdf makeswell ( talk) 17:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Meditation refers to the cultivation of positive fa..." Cultivation leads to a link about Bahva or something. Not sure if they are exactly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.74.141 ( talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition in the article: "Meditation refers to the cultivation of positive factors in one's life, through a practice session and/or throughout one's daily life"
Is there a source for this statement?
It makes no reference to the spiritual aspects of meditation and the consequences in the afterlife/future lives. Given that a significantly large percentage of meditators also believe in reincarnation the idea that they do so in order to improve this lifetime is too simplistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.203.230 ( talk) 13:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a paragraph in the top of this article which says that this article is incomplete. This ought to be taken for granted and need not be stated. The appropriate place for a set of links to other related wikipedia pages is in the see also section. Sentences like "It is also unlikely that this page will ever completely cover all the studies..." are simply stating the obvious and should be deleted. The same could be said for any field of research in any encyclopedia, and therefore it need not be said at all. Flies 1 ( talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to ask what people think about this page, and potential areas for improvement.
My thoughts are that the page needs to be organized around meditation styles or prominent theories, such as the MBSR section and the Goleman section currently present, and that the page should not be organized around effects, such as the EEG section and the Grey and White Matter section.
Specifically, I plan to create a subsection about Insight meditation and Anapanasati and link to those pages from here. There is already some information on those pages about the research being done that we can link to. makeswell ( talk) 05:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The following material was posted at the end of the section on Theoria (without even a paragraph break) and seems to reference a study by Lazar on anapanasati. It isn't well-written and doesn't summarize the import of the study, which was that meditation activates regions of the brain that are involving in regulating autonomic activity. I would've just left it if it hadn't been placed within the theoria section. I'm going to rewrite it though to make it clearer (I think) and put it in a proper section, which turns out to be anapanasati.
"During a meditation test, using fMRI two states were compared. Activity during the last 6 minutes of meditation and activity during 6 minutes of controlled meditation. As a result, in the controlled analysis increases were found in putamen, midbrain, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex and hippocampal/parahippocampal formation. However, in the last 6 minutes multiple foci of activation within prefrontal, parietal and temporal cortices as well as in the precentral and postcentral gyri, and hippocampal/parahippocampal formation were identified. The article [1] shows activation during meditation. The prompt values were analyzed at the Mind-Body Medical Institute."
makeswell ( talk) 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
one big problem with this page is that there are so many uncategorized studies which don't mention what style of meditation is being referred. there's even a comparison between different studies without referring to what it is, what style, that is being compared.
i tried to remedy this situation somewhat by putting categories to the paragraphs, like 'brain waves during meditation' goes in the category 'research by effect on the body' and so forth.
i would honestly really truthfully want to remove these studies outright, they make the page worse. but, i think they might be salvaged and serve some purpose some day. but to be honest they definitely need to be rewritten to at least involve the name of the type of meditation that is being studied. studies saying that the brain has grown during meditation should be used as a citation for a single claim that meditation changes the brain rather than summarized to make this same point. it's just a waste of space and pointless and it really is a big problem for this article.
i think future directions might be to rewrite these summaries of articles and then categorize them by style of meditation. makeswell ( talk) 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
p.s. sorry i am pissed off but it's true. makeswell ( talk) 13:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't find a definition of this word? If it's a meditation term could it be referenced and a definition given? If it's a typo could someone suggest a correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.203.230 ( talk) 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph was in the article in the section about research methodology. I didn't really know what to do with it, but I figured I'd place it here because it did more harm to the article than good. It sounds like someone who practices mental silence meditation placed it in the article to improve their self-esteem. The last few words of it sound especially biased and unclear.
In 2006 NCCAM revised their definition of meditation, emphasizing the experience of the “suspension of thought activity". This definition led to the possibility of comparing mental silence oriented meditation with resting alone and studies have found significant physiological differences between the two. [1] It has been found that all approaches to meditation can achieve some non-specific benefits however the mental silence approach may be associated with additional specific benefits which are clinically beneficial. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
makeswell ( talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried to be generous and forgiving with regards to a recent edit based on this source by salvaging and keeping in the article what I could, but I don't know how well the rest of the edit would fit into the article. Some of the information wasn't cited, so I added a citation tag. The following has the statement, "High-quality reviews," but then only gives one review not multiple as a source. I could re-word this but then there are concerns are the importance of this study in the field. I can't continuously try to salvage every single study ever done on meditation on this page, there just isn't room for all the thousand plus studies on meditation, ya know. I'm sure there are other articles that I could find that include a definition of meditation that differentiates it from the experience of simple relaxation, for instance there are a lot of definitions out there of meditation as involving emotional elements (see Richard Davidson), and I know that if I tried really hard I'd pretty easily find a couple reviews of meditation defined as mindfulness that has controls to groups, and I remember seeing one specifically in a Matthieu Ricard video where he mentions how anapanasati influences the brain differently than playing the guitar did. So, I don't have time for all this, of course.
High-quality reviews of the RCTs consistently find that meditation, as it is practised and defined in western society does not give better results than simple relaxation (for example - sleeping, listening to pleasant music or thinking pleasant thoughts). This has lead to the consideration of the need to find a better definition that could differentiate the experience and effects of meditation from those of simple relaxation. [1]
P.S. I also found this in the lede which is definitely not how we need to introduce this article. This study was cited by how many other studies according to a search on Google Scholar?
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
A categorical discussion of the health effects of meditation seems counter-productive given then breadth and diversity of the subject. Also, the stated references are few in number and are too limited in scope for the same reason. Finally, references to Chogyam Trungpa as an authoritative source on possible detrimental effects seems somewhat misguided given the well-documented history of his substance abuse and other related problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.184.1.100 ( talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Link 47 in the References does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.10.80 ( talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Research_on_meditation#Flow section seems to contradict itself. Attention/flow/directed thought, vs. awareness/reactivity/responsiveness, are kind of opposites aren't they? The section is confusing to me.
The flow article describes a state of exclusive focus, of ignoring outside distractions and internal clutter, where meditative flow exercise would be "intended to train attention for the sake of provoking insight"
Versus this, which seems to be the opposite:
"more flexible attention span makes it easier to be aware of a situation, easier to be objective in emotionally or morally difficult situations, and easier to achieve a state of responsive, creative awareness".
Full section:
"Mindfulness meditation, anapanasati, and related techniques, are intended to train attention for the sake of provoking insight. A wider, more flexible attention span makes it easier to be aware of a situation, easier to be objective in emotionally or morally difficult situations, and easier to achieve a state of responsive, creative awareness or "flow".[23] Research from Harvard medical school also shows that during meditation, physiological signals show that there is a decrease in respiration and increase in heart rate and blood oxygen saturation levels.[24]"
LieAfterLie ( talk) 02:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
With the exception of the last section "Research Methodolgy" this entire article is a WP:MEDRS failure, with almost all sources cited being WP:PRIMARY. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two parts that are inaccurate. First:
Here's the accurate part: In 2011 a study researching the role of TM in lowering Blood Pressure was scheduled for publication in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It was withdrawn 12 minutes before publication time,
Here's the inaccurate part: and was later published by the American Heart Association in 2013, and titled"Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association"
The study, as published in the American Heart Association journal CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES was actually entitled: Stress Reduction in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Randomized, Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation and Health Education in Blacks and listed by the editors of CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Editors’ Picks: Most Important Articles Published in 2012 for its finding that TM could reduce mortality from strokes and heart-attacks and other causes by 48%, with a 24% reduction in mortality from stress and hypertension-related causes specifically.
Since I'm self-identified as a highly biased and partisan TM practitioner, I've agreed to refrain from making edits myself. My suggestion for editing is to remove the mention of the AHA Circulation study entirely because anything you can say about the final version necessarily includes the above, as none of the blog-writers who enjoyed criticizing and blogging about the unpublished manuscript have bothered to write a letter to the editor about the new version, so there's no "reliable source" public discussion of it except that it made "editor's pick" in its final home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparaig2 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The second inaccurate statement is this:
The above actually reverses the sense of the summary of the AHA scientific statement which basically says that ONLY TM is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension, while other practices are not currently recommended. Here's the full text of the summary for the section on relaxation and meditation in Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (bold emphasis mine).
Any rewrites I suggest are going to be exceedingly partisan. You guys will have to figure out how best to save the entry. Sparaig2 ( talk) 23:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, we probably shouldn't cite unpublished research based on anecdotal evidence. So have removed this text from the article for discussion:
Dr. Willoughby Britton of Brown University is currently conducting the first large scale interview study of experienced meditators to document anecdotal reports of serious adverse effects of intensive (retreat based) meditation practice. She has not yet published the research, but she has spoken about her preliminary findings of numerous long lasting physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms that have been reported in the wake of intensive practice. These symptoms are serious enough to cause major functional impairments for durations of months to years in people with no previous history of psychiatric problems. <ref>Willoughby Britton, 2011. http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/09/bg-232-the-dark-night-project</ref>
TimidGuy ( talk) 11:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote the material that has been removed. I think it needs to be included. First, although it has not yet been published, Dr. Britton has presented her work at academic conferences. Second, she is a reputable academic in this area. Third, regarding the question of anecdotal evidence, this is all that exists in this realm and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise. It can take years of dedicated meditation practice to get to dark night stage, so it wouldn't be feasible to do a longitudinal study. The typical studies use the 8-week MBSR training as their model, and very few people enter into deep meditation territory after 8-weeks. What Dr. Britton is talking about is the types of disconcerting experiences that meditators experience after years of practice or after extended silent retreats. It's important information that people need to know, particularly people who may be going through the adverse stages of the meditative process and not realize that it is a recognized part of the process. I've re-posted the material along with a new reference link to a conference presentation by Dr. Britton. 135.23.157.190 ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If it has been presented at conferences, then this could be used as a valid reference. As far as making a broad claim on how meditation affects health etc. this should be held off until her work is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Zambelo; talk 06:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
In recent edits Chris Capoccia is adding health information to this article which is sourced to primary research. According to our medical sourcing guidelines we really shouldn't be doing that. Are there some good secondary sources that could be used instead? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
surely mindfupness research belongs in the mindfulness article. huge section here, overweighted this article. JCJC777 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Circuits Versus Metaphor Neurosynaptic processing rather than metaphorical constructs in brain science suggests that persistent phenomena such as ANGRY RUMINATION, a significant component of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder results from selective neural activity.
Rumination is the compulsively focused attention on the symptoms of one's distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions.
Mindfulness disciplines such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Yoga, Qi Gong and other practices that utilize controlled breathing and meditative techniques serve to quiet the over-utilized fight-flight responses of the amygdala, in favor of neocortical executive functions. In effect, this represents a reassignment of neurocircuitry by mechanisms of brain plasticity--more specifically, synaptic pruning of unwanted emotions, thoughts, behavior and memories in favor of growth in executive functions of the brain.
Angry rumination as a precursor to worsening of PTSD symptoms occurs because there is less distress and more control. Slouie520 ( talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Research on meditation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn Are you arguing with the new content? If it is just the raw refs, I find other wiki folk like improving such refs. JCJC777
Hindawi happy to bin. The other sources are mainstream science research publishers? JCJC777
No time. Just trying to help. Go well JCJC777
Dear contributors, Heartfulness meditation system too has taken up doing research on the effects of meditation in the overall well being of individuals. They have embarked upon doing rigorous research that includes finding the changes in the lengths of telomeres in DNA, that accounts for DNA damage due to aging or stress etc., getting overall efficiency of students and employees in their studies or productivity; using EEG to monitor the brain waves etc. They have published a handful of papers in peer reviewed journals. May I add a section on these results to make the page more comprehensive? The following are some of the papers published by researchers on the Heartfulness meditation.
(a) mindfulness section here is too big ref rest of article, and (b) debateable if mindfulness is a form of meditation, or something else. Surely the mindfulness content here should be moved to a new 'research on mindfulness' page? JCJC777
agreed. I'm sorry I don't personally have the resources to do the rationalisation you suggest (I was not the creator of this material). Best, JCJC777
Currently the main substance of the page is divided into three sections based on what type of meditation is under consideration: 1) mindfulness meditation, 2) other forms, and 3) multiple or unspecified. I think the key divisions should be between types of effects, e.g., brain effects, attention, reducing mental illness, etc. Within each of those sections, we can note different results for different types of meditation where that is what the research has found.
Under my proposal, studies that cover multiple forms of meditation would be together with research that covered those forms of meditation individually on the same topic, which would be much easier to understand for readers. As far as studies that use an unspecified meditation type, that just means they did a bad job specifying what they were studying; ideally these will be replaced with more rigorous and more recent meta-analyses that take into account differences between meditation styles. I also think we should take our cue from studies that study multiple forms of meditation, or medical bodies that issue position statements on meditation in general: the takeaway is that they are in many ways comparable and so we too can discuss them together (while noting differences where they have been found). This way, both differences and similarities will be more apparent. Furthermore, the "multiple or unspecified" section actually includes a lot of mindfulness meditation research, as well as other specific individual forms like Zen meditation, so some form of re-organizing is necessary anyways.
I'll leave this for comment for a while and if I don't get any objections I'll go ahead with re-organizing. Cheers, Gazelle55 ( talk) 02:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to pretend this article is about meditation in general. It's not. The section on TM for example, a technique which has over 340 peer reviewed articles, multiple systematic reviews, and growing is treated in an inaccurate way. The article then goes onto focus on mindfulness, is deliberately weighted towards mindfulness meditation. I haven't looked at all the sources but I'd suggest anyone interested in a neutral article do so to make sure the research pertains to mindfulness. (Note for example that Opsina has been withdrawn as useful only for historical purposes.) Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gacentenari.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikkigb. Peer reviewers: Sab3434, Anjdarji, Kjoi2000, Dmwhite98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I would rather see a summary of the evidence that exists for and against than the not particularly useful "no good evidence."
[8] See
Law of No Evidence: The Phrase “No Evidence” Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Communication
. -
Scarpy (
talk)
20:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Altogether, although analyses are still sparse and based on cross-sectional data, study outcomes suggest that meditation might be beneficial for brain preservation—both with respect to gray and white matter—possibly by slowing down the natural (age-related) decrease of brain tissue. Nevertheless, it should also be recognized that, until robust longitudinal data become available, there is no evidence for causation between meditation and brain preservation.
I prefer reviews in reputable journals, clinical guidelines, or government research centers. As implied in your conjunction (though somewhat ignored in your example) while these would all count as RS, a topic not being discussed in one of category of scholarly literature does not nullify its presence in others.
...that publication is in an "Opinion" journal, which we should avoidhuh? Current Opinion is a series of established review journals that offer authoritative, systematic synthesis of emerging and hot topics." This is completely inline with WP:MEDRS in a nutshell: "Cite review articles, don't write them." It's the kind of article that's ideal for a MED topic on Wikipedia. - Scarpy ( talk) 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have one or more reviews to offer, please provide the literature here to assess. Thanks.and I was like "hmm... okay, I'll check and see if there's been more reviews since 2016" I didn't find the ensuing collaboration to be particularly congenial. - Scarpy ( talk) 02:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This edit and section on "heartfulness" contributed by Oria 6 is not justified for several reasons: 1) all of the sources are primary research mainly in generally-poor publications. "Pilot studies" are too preliminary and vague to mention. Publications in Frontiers journals are suspected of predatory publishing (author-paid with poor editorial practices) and are highlighted as dubious on WP:CITEWATCH. Sources more than 5 years old are considered as out of date, WP:MEDDATE, India Today is not a reliable medical source, and Healthline is a non-expert source written by bloggers. 2) the entire text used is conjectural, e.g., "gamma waves are believed". There is no evidence or clear presentation of what "heartfulness" is, and quackery is likely the explanation for it. 3) all the associations suggested between physiological measurements and meditation are speculation, far from proving causality - in simpler words: they are just fiction. Following WP:BRD, I am removing the section again, and ask Oria 6 to defend this section with clearer content and WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDSCI reviews which appear not to exist. Zefr ( talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
References
@zefr. Noticing that you havent responded to any of the points expressed in defence of the content. I am assuming that the concerns you raised have been resolved. I will be re-instating the content. I request you to not delete content unilaterally again without adequate explanation WP:Content removal Oria 6 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Oria 6 ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chaysestevens ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: MeadorBriannaM.
— Assignment last updated by MeadorBriannaM ( talk) 05:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo supported by WikiProject Honors Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is written with a slanted POV. It focuses heavily on Mindfulness and almost ignores many other types of meditation which suggests the editors adding content have a Mindfulness leaning. As well, sources are in some cases not Wikipedia compliant for WP:MEDRS content. Unless Students have the experience to both recognize and deal with this kind of badly written article, this may not be a good Wikipedia article to learn with and from. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Per the tag request, I dealt with the TM section by adding the section on health from the TM article; the content is not really updated since there is recent research that could be added.
Many of the sources in this article are not MEDRS compliant, some content is using a withdrawn review-Ospina, and much of the article is about Mindfulness rather than an overview of meditation in general. I may have to time to fix some of this, not sure at this point. It's big job! Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
is just a Daniel Goleman essay. 67.81.102.176 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I had added this piece of info previously, intending to locate some source material for it, but in the interim Teardrop deleted it. I strongly suggest that it (or some similar statement) be reinserted with the appropriate suggested citation since without it, and especially since the article is specifically related to health applications and clinical studies, it is absolutely necessary to make a statement like the one I suggest: (Since there are various types of meditation, the effects of each must be considered independently. What may be true of one procedure, may not apply to another. Therefore, one would be wise to consider carefully the research done on each specific type of meditation, recognizing that findings on one type may not be automatically transferable to other types. References: http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/Research/ComparisonofTechniques/index.cfm ) Of course, the article should also remain unbiased, neither intentionally or unintentionally appearing to favor any particular type of meditation. Sueyen 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I thinkg it would be good to have a graph comparison on oxygen consumption with deep sleep and also if possible its rejuvinating effects as compared to ordinary sleep or REM dreaming sleep.-- Jondel ( talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I have begun to look at this article and wish to work on it slowly - given time restraints - I am especially concerned about this quote:
"In 1976, the Australian psychiatrist Ainslie Meares reported the regression of cancer following intensive meditation (published in the Medical Journal of Australia)"
I cannot see how this can remain without a reference to the actual research paper. As I recall some of Meares findings were a little "controversial" I will give it a day or so and if no one can find will remove before beginning the "bulk" of the work on this. The7thdr ( talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
add at Adverse effects phrases from Kundalini Syndrome,or mention Kundalini Syndrome Zenhabit ( talk) 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The title of the article is too long and it seems to combine two or three topics into one. Any ideas or suggestions? Barkeep Chat | $ 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think particularly the section on perception can be split off, as well as the section on meditation and drugs, and then the article renamed to Meditation and Medicine or something like that. Snake666 ( talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to specify what type of meditation is being observed. makeswell ( talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Starting the article with an explanation of the different categories of meditations, as they are reported in peer reviewed scientific papers, will help avoiding a bias toward any specific kind of meditations. I am surprise that the article begins, after the Introduction, by a section only on Mindfulness meditation, which is not even followed by corresponding sections for other kind of meditations. The different categories of meditation should be discussed first, before we write a section on any specific kind of meditations. After that, the information that is available in the published literature for each category should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 ( talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As of now, I'm removing those sections which may prove hazardous to people's health. I'll place them here. For example, studies that show that meditation does not have an effect, or that the studies which were analyzed did not have enough rigor, do not mean that meditation has no effect - the lack of knowledge of something does not imply that it does not exist. Also, a "quick search", on scholar.google.com should seriously not equate to medical advice. This could prove very negative, and is against Wikipedia's policy on health-related articles. Let us all aspire to refrain from the sort of work as is shown below.
A 2007 review article found no reliable effect of mindfulness meditation on anxiety or depression. [1] A 2006 article found "The strongest evidence for efficacy was found for epilepsy, symptoms of the premenstrual syndrome and menopausal symptoms. Benefit was also demonstrated for mood and anxiety disorders, autoimmune illness, and emotional disturbance in neoplastic disease." but noted also that "Clear and reproducible evidence supporting efficacy from large, methodologically sound studies is lacking." [2] A 2009 article found, "substantial disparity between what is espoused clinically and what is known empirically about the benefits of mindfulness practice". [3] Meditation was found to alleviate depressive symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia. [4] Participants enrolled in a 10-week mindfulness meditation program showed improved scores on test of depression and associated stress. [5] makeswell ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As to whether the studies are accurate or not, I am not going to spend too much time researching and discussing this debatable question, nor should I as someone who is not an expert. However, I will mention that below this Talk section there is another in which there is a quote from a scientific study, also found on scholar.google.com, in which it was found that there was a significant chance that practitioners of meditation would accurately guess which picture was chosen before being told the answer, that they displayed precognition and had psychic powers. Furthermore, the studies certainly do not encapsulate the full spectrum of the research on meditation, and are therefore, most certainly, incomplete. Therefore one could realistically imagine somebody foregoing the practice of meditation after reading the information which I had removed from the public Wikipedia. As to how it is medical advice, it isn't, but it is medical information and therefore may become the basis of a decision regarding the health of a person. I am surprised really that I would have to write this response, I would feel it to be rather unnecessary to explain the potential harm that could arise from posting this sort of information without any certifiable experience in the field or a more full study. I would guess, though this is not something that I would hastily post online, that meta-analyses of a large number of studies, done by a large and reputable organization, for example one such study as the National Institute of Health meta-analysis of the scientific literature on meditation, which found that there were a very large and substantial number of studies which did have methodological flaws and were therefore unreliable, would be a more reliable basis on which to found any sort of practical decision regarding one's health. makeswell ( talk) 08:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Section Meditation and drugs says:
What "many" Western religions? Indigenous American religions? Otherwise there are about c:a 3-4 western religions (nearly not eligible for "many"), i.e. Christianity, Islam, LDS and Jehovas Witnesses. Regarding Islam I don't know, but the other ones don't use meditation (except that Swedish Lutherans are beginning to import buddhist methods without changing them). "Many" is not likely, unless we speak of indigenous Americans. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted that sentence first mentioned because it was unsourced and those religions that do use tea generally don't equate it as an "aid" in meditation, it's just like a tea break in England or something. Also, there's more examples of real drugs and meditation sort of things there now.--makeswell 05:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)
This study, entitled, "An Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists" was found on scholar.google.com via a search for, "shamatha".
It found that, "Age and years of meditation practice correlated significantly with the psi scores (Pearson r = 0.52, p , 0.05). This suggests that, as one practices meditation, psychic awareness begins to manifest more reliably." Three meditators were able to accurately predict which one of a set of four images was selected by a computer, before receiving any feedback from the computer in regards to its selection.
The .pdf is here: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_roney-dougal.pdf .
I feel like this study has relevance for this Wikipedia page. makeswell ( talk) 08:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Do not read the following if you value your time.
If anybody can decipher the following quote they will win the grand prize of being able to use it in the article. Before I let you go buck wild with it, first I'd like to mention that the first reference supports the name of a researcher, lol, which is not something that necessarily has to be cited in my experience.
"Among the side-effects that have been reported we find those mentioned by Craven [1]: uncomfortable kinaesthetic sensations, mild dissociation, feelings of guilt and, via anxiety-provoking phenomena, psychosis-like symptoms, grandiosity, elation, destructive behaviour and suicidal feelings [2]."
The second reference is just an excerpt from a secondary source about a Craven study, and when you look up the actual study, in the synopsis you read, "It is hoped that improved understanding of meditation will contribute to an increased acceptance and use of these practices as aids to psychotherapeutic change and will facilitate meaningful research regarding meditation," which simply does not go along with the secondary quote above. So I'm removing this part, and posting it here in part so that I do not have to feel guilty for removing such a large section of the page which is cited. :/ makeswell ( talk) 22:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
this is a good article to add to this page, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944261/ and also a study of the 'attentional blink' pheonomenon, http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2007/SlagterMentalTrainingPLoS.pdf makeswell ( talk) 17:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Meditation refers to the cultivation of positive fa..." Cultivation leads to a link about Bahva or something. Not sure if they are exactly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.74.141 ( talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition in the article: "Meditation refers to the cultivation of positive factors in one's life, through a practice session and/or throughout one's daily life"
Is there a source for this statement?
It makes no reference to the spiritual aspects of meditation and the consequences in the afterlife/future lives. Given that a significantly large percentage of meditators also believe in reincarnation the idea that they do so in order to improve this lifetime is too simplistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.203.230 ( talk) 13:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a paragraph in the top of this article which says that this article is incomplete. This ought to be taken for granted and need not be stated. The appropriate place for a set of links to other related wikipedia pages is in the see also section. Sentences like "It is also unlikely that this page will ever completely cover all the studies..." are simply stating the obvious and should be deleted. The same could be said for any field of research in any encyclopedia, and therefore it need not be said at all. Flies 1 ( talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to ask what people think about this page, and potential areas for improvement.
My thoughts are that the page needs to be organized around meditation styles or prominent theories, such as the MBSR section and the Goleman section currently present, and that the page should not be organized around effects, such as the EEG section and the Grey and White Matter section.
Specifically, I plan to create a subsection about Insight meditation and Anapanasati and link to those pages from here. There is already some information on those pages about the research being done that we can link to. makeswell ( talk) 05:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The following material was posted at the end of the section on Theoria (without even a paragraph break) and seems to reference a study by Lazar on anapanasati. It isn't well-written and doesn't summarize the import of the study, which was that meditation activates regions of the brain that are involving in regulating autonomic activity. I would've just left it if it hadn't been placed within the theoria section. I'm going to rewrite it though to make it clearer (I think) and put it in a proper section, which turns out to be anapanasati.
"During a meditation test, using fMRI two states were compared. Activity during the last 6 minutes of meditation and activity during 6 minutes of controlled meditation. As a result, in the controlled analysis increases were found in putamen, midbrain, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex and hippocampal/parahippocampal formation. However, in the last 6 minutes multiple foci of activation within prefrontal, parietal and temporal cortices as well as in the precentral and postcentral gyri, and hippocampal/parahippocampal formation were identified. The article [1] shows activation during meditation. The prompt values were analyzed at the Mind-Body Medical Institute."
makeswell ( talk) 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
one big problem with this page is that there are so many uncategorized studies which don't mention what style of meditation is being referred. there's even a comparison between different studies without referring to what it is, what style, that is being compared.
i tried to remedy this situation somewhat by putting categories to the paragraphs, like 'brain waves during meditation' goes in the category 'research by effect on the body' and so forth.
i would honestly really truthfully want to remove these studies outright, they make the page worse. but, i think they might be salvaged and serve some purpose some day. but to be honest they definitely need to be rewritten to at least involve the name of the type of meditation that is being studied. studies saying that the brain has grown during meditation should be used as a citation for a single claim that meditation changes the brain rather than summarized to make this same point. it's just a waste of space and pointless and it really is a big problem for this article.
i think future directions might be to rewrite these summaries of articles and then categorize them by style of meditation. makeswell ( talk) 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
p.s. sorry i am pissed off but it's true. makeswell ( talk) 13:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't find a definition of this word? If it's a meditation term could it be referenced and a definition given? If it's a typo could someone suggest a correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.203.230 ( talk) 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph was in the article in the section about research methodology. I didn't really know what to do with it, but I figured I'd place it here because it did more harm to the article than good. It sounds like someone who practices mental silence meditation placed it in the article to improve their self-esteem. The last few words of it sound especially biased and unclear.
In 2006 NCCAM revised their definition of meditation, emphasizing the experience of the “suspension of thought activity". This definition led to the possibility of comparing mental silence oriented meditation with resting alone and studies have found significant physiological differences between the two. [1] It has been found that all approaches to meditation can achieve some non-specific benefits however the mental silence approach may be associated with additional specific benefits which are clinically beneficial. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
makeswell ( talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried to be generous and forgiving with regards to a recent edit based on this source by salvaging and keeping in the article what I could, but I don't know how well the rest of the edit would fit into the article. Some of the information wasn't cited, so I added a citation tag. The following has the statement, "High-quality reviews," but then only gives one review not multiple as a source. I could re-word this but then there are concerns are the importance of this study in the field. I can't continuously try to salvage every single study ever done on meditation on this page, there just isn't room for all the thousand plus studies on meditation, ya know. I'm sure there are other articles that I could find that include a definition of meditation that differentiates it from the experience of simple relaxation, for instance there are a lot of definitions out there of meditation as involving emotional elements (see Richard Davidson), and I know that if I tried really hard I'd pretty easily find a couple reviews of meditation defined as mindfulness that has controls to groups, and I remember seeing one specifically in a Matthieu Ricard video where he mentions how anapanasati influences the brain differently than playing the guitar did. So, I don't have time for all this, of course.
High-quality reviews of the RCTs consistently find that meditation, as it is practised and defined in western society does not give better results than simple relaxation (for example - sleeping, listening to pleasant music or thinking pleasant thoughts). This has lead to the consideration of the need to find a better definition that could differentiate the experience and effects of meditation from those of simple relaxation. [1]
P.S. I also found this in the lede which is definitely not how we need to introduce this article. This study was cited by how many other studies according to a search on Google Scholar?
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
A categorical discussion of the health effects of meditation seems counter-productive given then breadth and diversity of the subject. Also, the stated references are few in number and are too limited in scope for the same reason. Finally, references to Chogyam Trungpa as an authoritative source on possible detrimental effects seems somewhat misguided given the well-documented history of his substance abuse and other related problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.184.1.100 ( talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Link 47 in the References does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.10.80 ( talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Research_on_meditation#Flow section seems to contradict itself. Attention/flow/directed thought, vs. awareness/reactivity/responsiveness, are kind of opposites aren't they? The section is confusing to me.
The flow article describes a state of exclusive focus, of ignoring outside distractions and internal clutter, where meditative flow exercise would be "intended to train attention for the sake of provoking insight"
Versus this, which seems to be the opposite:
"more flexible attention span makes it easier to be aware of a situation, easier to be objective in emotionally or morally difficult situations, and easier to achieve a state of responsive, creative awareness".
Full section:
"Mindfulness meditation, anapanasati, and related techniques, are intended to train attention for the sake of provoking insight. A wider, more flexible attention span makes it easier to be aware of a situation, easier to be objective in emotionally or morally difficult situations, and easier to achieve a state of responsive, creative awareness or "flow".[23] Research from Harvard medical school also shows that during meditation, physiological signals show that there is a decrease in respiration and increase in heart rate and blood oxygen saturation levels.[24]"
LieAfterLie ( talk) 02:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
With the exception of the last section "Research Methodolgy" this entire article is a WP:MEDRS failure, with almost all sources cited being WP:PRIMARY. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two parts that are inaccurate. First:
Here's the accurate part: In 2011 a study researching the role of TM in lowering Blood Pressure was scheduled for publication in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It was withdrawn 12 minutes before publication time,
Here's the inaccurate part: and was later published by the American Heart Association in 2013, and titled"Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association"
The study, as published in the American Heart Association journal CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES was actually entitled: Stress Reduction in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Randomized, Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation and Health Education in Blacks and listed by the editors of CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Editors’ Picks: Most Important Articles Published in 2012 for its finding that TM could reduce mortality from strokes and heart-attacks and other causes by 48%, with a 24% reduction in mortality from stress and hypertension-related causes specifically.
Since I'm self-identified as a highly biased and partisan TM practitioner, I've agreed to refrain from making edits myself. My suggestion for editing is to remove the mention of the AHA Circulation study entirely because anything you can say about the final version necessarily includes the above, as none of the blog-writers who enjoyed criticizing and blogging about the unpublished manuscript have bothered to write a letter to the editor about the new version, so there's no "reliable source" public discussion of it except that it made "editor's pick" in its final home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparaig2 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The second inaccurate statement is this:
The above actually reverses the sense of the summary of the AHA scientific statement which basically says that ONLY TM is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension, while other practices are not currently recommended. Here's the full text of the summary for the section on relaxation and meditation in Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (bold emphasis mine).
Any rewrites I suggest are going to be exceedingly partisan. You guys will have to figure out how best to save the entry. Sparaig2 ( talk) 23:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, we probably shouldn't cite unpublished research based on anecdotal evidence. So have removed this text from the article for discussion:
Dr. Willoughby Britton of Brown University is currently conducting the first large scale interview study of experienced meditators to document anecdotal reports of serious adverse effects of intensive (retreat based) meditation practice. She has not yet published the research, but she has spoken about her preliminary findings of numerous long lasting physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms that have been reported in the wake of intensive practice. These symptoms are serious enough to cause major functional impairments for durations of months to years in people with no previous history of psychiatric problems. <ref>Willoughby Britton, 2011. http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/09/bg-232-the-dark-night-project</ref>
TimidGuy ( talk) 11:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote the material that has been removed. I think it needs to be included. First, although it has not yet been published, Dr. Britton has presented her work at academic conferences. Second, she is a reputable academic in this area. Third, regarding the question of anecdotal evidence, this is all that exists in this realm and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise. It can take years of dedicated meditation practice to get to dark night stage, so it wouldn't be feasible to do a longitudinal study. The typical studies use the 8-week MBSR training as their model, and very few people enter into deep meditation territory after 8-weeks. What Dr. Britton is talking about is the types of disconcerting experiences that meditators experience after years of practice or after extended silent retreats. It's important information that people need to know, particularly people who may be going through the adverse stages of the meditative process and not realize that it is a recognized part of the process. I've re-posted the material along with a new reference link to a conference presentation by Dr. Britton. 135.23.157.190 ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If it has been presented at conferences, then this could be used as a valid reference. As far as making a broad claim on how meditation affects health etc. this should be held off until her work is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Zambelo; talk 06:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
In recent edits Chris Capoccia is adding health information to this article which is sourced to primary research. According to our medical sourcing guidelines we really shouldn't be doing that. Are there some good secondary sources that could be used instead? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
surely mindfupness research belongs in the mindfulness article. huge section here, overweighted this article. JCJC777 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Circuits Versus Metaphor Neurosynaptic processing rather than metaphorical constructs in brain science suggests that persistent phenomena such as ANGRY RUMINATION, a significant component of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder results from selective neural activity.
Rumination is the compulsively focused attention on the symptoms of one's distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions.
Mindfulness disciplines such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Yoga, Qi Gong and other practices that utilize controlled breathing and meditative techniques serve to quiet the over-utilized fight-flight responses of the amygdala, in favor of neocortical executive functions. In effect, this represents a reassignment of neurocircuitry by mechanisms of brain plasticity--more specifically, synaptic pruning of unwanted emotions, thoughts, behavior and memories in favor of growth in executive functions of the brain.
Angry rumination as a precursor to worsening of PTSD symptoms occurs because there is less distress and more control. Slouie520 ( talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Research on meditation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn Are you arguing with the new content? If it is just the raw refs, I find other wiki folk like improving such refs. JCJC777
Hindawi happy to bin. The other sources are mainstream science research publishers? JCJC777
No time. Just trying to help. Go well JCJC777
Dear contributors, Heartfulness meditation system too has taken up doing research on the effects of meditation in the overall well being of individuals. They have embarked upon doing rigorous research that includes finding the changes in the lengths of telomeres in DNA, that accounts for DNA damage due to aging or stress etc., getting overall efficiency of students and employees in their studies or productivity; using EEG to monitor the brain waves etc. They have published a handful of papers in peer reviewed journals. May I add a section on these results to make the page more comprehensive? The following are some of the papers published by researchers on the Heartfulness meditation.
(a) mindfulness section here is too big ref rest of article, and (b) debateable if mindfulness is a form of meditation, or something else. Surely the mindfulness content here should be moved to a new 'research on mindfulness' page? JCJC777
agreed. I'm sorry I don't personally have the resources to do the rationalisation you suggest (I was not the creator of this material). Best, JCJC777
Currently the main substance of the page is divided into three sections based on what type of meditation is under consideration: 1) mindfulness meditation, 2) other forms, and 3) multiple or unspecified. I think the key divisions should be between types of effects, e.g., brain effects, attention, reducing mental illness, etc. Within each of those sections, we can note different results for different types of meditation where that is what the research has found.
Under my proposal, studies that cover multiple forms of meditation would be together with research that covered those forms of meditation individually on the same topic, which would be much easier to understand for readers. As far as studies that use an unspecified meditation type, that just means they did a bad job specifying what they were studying; ideally these will be replaced with more rigorous and more recent meta-analyses that take into account differences between meditation styles. I also think we should take our cue from studies that study multiple forms of meditation, or medical bodies that issue position statements on meditation in general: the takeaway is that they are in many ways comparable and so we too can discuss them together (while noting differences where they have been found). This way, both differences and similarities will be more apparent. Furthermore, the "multiple or unspecified" section actually includes a lot of mindfulness meditation research, as well as other specific individual forms like Zen meditation, so some form of re-organizing is necessary anyways.
I'll leave this for comment for a while and if I don't get any objections I'll go ahead with re-organizing. Cheers, Gazelle55 ( talk) 02:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to pretend this article is about meditation in general. It's not. The section on TM for example, a technique which has over 340 peer reviewed articles, multiple systematic reviews, and growing is treated in an inaccurate way. The article then goes onto focus on mindfulness, is deliberately weighted towards mindfulness meditation. I haven't looked at all the sources but I'd suggest anyone interested in a neutral article do so to make sure the research pertains to mindfulness. (Note for example that Opsina has been withdrawn as useful only for historical purposes.) Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gacentenari.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikkigb. Peer reviewers: Sab3434, Anjdarji, Kjoi2000, Dmwhite98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I would rather see a summary of the evidence that exists for and against than the not particularly useful "no good evidence."
[8] See
Law of No Evidence: The Phrase “No Evidence” Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Communication
. -
Scarpy (
talk)
20:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Altogether, although analyses are still sparse and based on cross-sectional data, study outcomes suggest that meditation might be beneficial for brain preservation—both with respect to gray and white matter—possibly by slowing down the natural (age-related) decrease of brain tissue. Nevertheless, it should also be recognized that, until robust longitudinal data become available, there is no evidence for causation between meditation and brain preservation.
I prefer reviews in reputable journals, clinical guidelines, or government research centers. As implied in your conjunction (though somewhat ignored in your example) while these would all count as RS, a topic not being discussed in one of category of scholarly literature does not nullify its presence in others.
...that publication is in an "Opinion" journal, which we should avoidhuh? Current Opinion is a series of established review journals that offer authoritative, systematic synthesis of emerging and hot topics." This is completely inline with WP:MEDRS in a nutshell: "Cite review articles, don't write them." It's the kind of article that's ideal for a MED topic on Wikipedia. - Scarpy ( talk) 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have one or more reviews to offer, please provide the literature here to assess. Thanks.and I was like "hmm... okay, I'll check and see if there's been more reviews since 2016" I didn't find the ensuing collaboration to be particularly congenial. - Scarpy ( talk) 02:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This edit and section on "heartfulness" contributed by Oria 6 is not justified for several reasons: 1) all of the sources are primary research mainly in generally-poor publications. "Pilot studies" are too preliminary and vague to mention. Publications in Frontiers journals are suspected of predatory publishing (author-paid with poor editorial practices) and are highlighted as dubious on WP:CITEWATCH. Sources more than 5 years old are considered as out of date, WP:MEDDATE, India Today is not a reliable medical source, and Healthline is a non-expert source written by bloggers. 2) the entire text used is conjectural, e.g., "gamma waves are believed". There is no evidence or clear presentation of what "heartfulness" is, and quackery is likely the explanation for it. 3) all the associations suggested between physiological measurements and meditation are speculation, far from proving causality - in simpler words: they are just fiction. Following WP:BRD, I am removing the section again, and ask Oria 6 to defend this section with clearer content and WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDSCI reviews which appear not to exist. Zefr ( talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
References
@zefr. Noticing that you havent responded to any of the points expressed in defence of the content. I am assuming that the concerns you raised have been resolved. I will be re-instating the content. I request you to not delete content unilaterally again without adequate explanation WP:Content removal Oria 6 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Oria 6 ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chaysestevens ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: MeadorBriannaM.
— Assignment last updated by MeadorBriannaM ( talk) 05:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo supported by WikiProject Honors Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is written with a slanted POV. It focuses heavily on Mindfulness and almost ignores many other types of meditation which suggests the editors adding content have a Mindfulness leaning. As well, sources are in some cases not Wikipedia compliant for WP:MEDRS content. Unless Students have the experience to both recognize and deal with this kind of badly written article, this may not be a good Wikipedia article to learn with and from. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Per the tag request, I dealt with the TM section by adding the section on health from the TM article; the content is not really updated since there is recent research that could be added.
Many of the sources in this article are not MEDRS compliant, some content is using a withdrawn review-Ospina, and much of the article is about Mindfulness rather than an overview of meditation in general. I may have to time to fix some of this, not sure at this point. It's big job! Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)