This page 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. |
I'm very skeptical of qigong, and trying to find any trials that could disprove effectiveness of qigong I stumbled on the the following page referencing and citing over 20 publications that claim effectiveness of qigong. Publications of research Though the content of the website itself can be biased, there are definite references. So a further review of these studies/publications is needed to determine their credibility.
I also found a skepticism article here: Sima Nan: Fighting Qigong Pseudoscience in China, which however quotes almost no research, but features a view of a skeptic who's been involved in qiqong community.
The following webpage gives a thorough analysis of current scientific evidence, references corresponding studies, but also notes that most studies suffer from small sample size, are not double-blinded etc. Scientific Evidence for Qigong and Conditions where it seem to be effective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.127.206 ( talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Article has been rewritten with enough external references to address the issue of skeptics. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about qigong or reiki, but they sound very similar. I would like to see each article mention the other and briefly compare the two. Bhami ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to add that there IS more to these things than meets the eye. To my own surprise, as someone who always used to discount such things, I have self-realised Reiki after the fashion of the original methods taught by Usui back in the 1920s. This is a wider set of practices, including diagnostic techniques, than the current western style, which by comparison is watered-down 'just send it in' approach. I'm amazed at what is possible, but what will be will be. Google 'steve the healer' for info on me. I stand by what I do. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.147.215.5 (
talk)
01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing about what the movements or breathing are. The pictures show what look like tai chi moves, and the only description of the breathing is "the inverse breath of inhaling to the back of the thoracic cavity rather than diaphragmatic breathing", which means nothing to the layman. (What's an inverse breath? What's the thoractic cavity?) A simple description or example is needed, and also how qigong is different from tai chi and yoga. (The talk archive says a bit about tai chi in the "Types of Chi-Gong" section.) Sluggoster ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an acupuncturist and certified Qigong instructor. I unfortunately don't have time to rewrite this article for at least 6 months, but I need to point out some important inaccuracies. The section titled "the Rise of Qigong" is completely wrong regarding the origins of Qigong. The primary work cited is a book on a single, fairly new form of Qigong (Falun Gong). But Qigong predates Chinese medicine, kung fu, tai chi, and all other systematized arts based on Qi. Qigong is, in essence, more "raw" than these other arts -- it is essentially the practice of perceiving, cultivating, and manipulating Qi for spiritual, martial, or health purposes. According to Daniel Reid, in "Harnessing the Power of the Universe: A Complete Guide to the Principles and Practice of Chi-Gung," the earliest forms of Qigong are probably about 10,000 years old, and were the domain of tribal shamans. (Qigong of this era took a form similar to dance.)
Regarding the sections discussing the PRC government's role in the process of promoting and organizing Qigong, this needs to be put into proper context. Much of the history of Qigong has been fairly secretive, with master-disciple lineages similar to the kung fu tradition. Until recently, the government had no particular role in Qigong aside from threatening its practitioners. Even now, it seems the government's involvement is a concession to Qigong's great number of adherents, with the clear ulterior motive of suppressing mass organization. However, there is probably some earnest interest in proving its merit as a health supporting practice.
In the Uses paragraph, it is misleading to say Qigong employs a particular style of breathing, or even that "Taoist qigong employs..." As with kung fu, there are innumerable styles of Qigong, and certainly no unified theory or practice. As for making any claims of "Taoist Qigong," most Qigong masters probably consider themselves Daoists (more or less), and many would say their Qigong is based on Daoist principles. There is no single "Taoist Qigong."
I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but this article was written with a poor and incomplete survey of sources.
Anahata9 ( talk) 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You fail as an qigong instructor without knowing what really is qigong. As the original article said, qigong in its modern form with different schools and types only appeared in post-mao china. There might be mentions of "qi", "neigong", "neijin" in Traditional Chinese Martial arts but they are not "qigong" as you know it today.
Just because the concept of "qi" existed for a long doesn't mean that it's qi gong. If there aren't any accurate sources saying hw those earlier forms became the "qigong" you know today, then it isn't qigong. The concept of qi is not qi gong. It's like saying Judaism is a Abrahamitic Monotheistic religion, Islam is a Abrahamictic Monotheistic religion. Therefore, Islam existed the moment Judaism began and Islam is Judaism. That is just plain ignorance.
Have you even wondered why the term "qi gong", just like "wu shu" didn't even exist in Chinese texts in pre-communist china? "Wu shu" is a watered down,exhibition oriented sport derivated from chinese martial arts. Wushu is not kungfu. Just like how the concept of qi is not qigong. Go look at the history of Chinese Martial Arts, there are no sects, schools, clans or families practicing or teaching qigong. Don't get influenced by wuxia novels and by poorly researched books. Although Qi Gong can has its origins traced a long way back, Qi Gong in its form today only existed in the modern era. 60.52.103.141 ( talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I will help you understand what Qigong means.. Qi (also 'Chi', 'Ki') literally means 'Energy'-- Gong (also Kung [as in kung fu, etc.]) literally means 'Work', or a work-in 'Practice'.. It is the 'Art/practice' of 'working with energy'... This may help you understand 'origins of Qigong' -- there really is no 'origin' as describing the source of Qigong is like describing the source of languages, it is not something you can go "Oh yeah it was year XX B.C. when the book 'How to use Energy' was written". No.. it is not that simple. This wikipedia article is sincerely in need of a total Re-Haul! And please, skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed. Also..
"User talk:60.52.103.141 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)", you are completely wrong. You fail to understand that Qigong, as with ALL ancient-spiritual traditions, has evolved due to modernization of the planet - it has not 'emerged' as a 'new form of qigong' as you say! It is not just Qigong, it is EVERY ASPECT of our life too - specific political ideals, specific cultural taboos/acceptances, specific technologies, etc. it is only recently that there has been a 'globalization' of cultures and hence traditions..
If anyone, somebody like Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming should be writing the Qigong article! Or at least source his knowledge in this wikipedia article.. Wouldn't it be stupid to have first-day students teach the class instead of professors who have Ph.D's and/or years of relevant experience in the subject? Just so, it is STUPID to have these 'blatant close-minded' 'snippets' compose a wikipedia article. If you skeptics of qigong must, then treat the article as if it is make-believe, does it harm you to have the article written by Qigong masters and experienced practitioners? Or are mostly just disinformation agents? ( 71.222.36.171 ( talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Overhaul completed. The tone of the article is more neutral and should be more informative. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how much of Western confusion results from a very literal interpretation. To make an analogy, consider the Western concept of health.
Everyone knows that a person can have good health or be in poor health. We may even say that a person can be stricken or afflicted with bad health, or lost his health due to unhealthy activity. We have buildings that say "National Institutes of Health". Yet there is no physician who can dissect the health out of a cadaver (reasonably enough) or even a healthy person. No one can say how much health weighs or what color it is. Two doctors can look at a patient and disagree about whether he is healthy or not. By far most of the times we see the word printed on the side of a box of sugared cereal extract or a jug of fortified juice-flavored high fructose corn syrup it means nothing about whether a person will get sick or not. In fact lots of people talk about health but only a subset of them are actually helpful. I hope that people who are fluent with both cultures will consider whether something similar applies to qigong, or if it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than this. Wnt ( talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese medicine, like many other Chinese sciences, defines data on the basis of the inductive and synthetic mode of cognition. Inductivity corresponds to a logical link between two effective positions existing at the same time in different places in space. (Conversely, causality is the logical link between two effective positions given at different times at the same place in space.) In other words, effects based on on positions that are separate in space yet simultaneous in time are mutually inductive and thus are called inductive effects. In Western science prior to the development of electrodynamics and nuclear physics (which are founded essentially on inductivity), the inductive nexus was limited to subordinate uses in protosciences such as astrology. Now Western man, as a consequence of two thousand years of intellectual tradition, persists in the habit of making causal connections first and inductive links, if at all, only as an afterthought. This habit must still be considered the biggest obstacle to an adequate appreciation of Chinese science in general and Chinese medicine in particular. Given such different cognitive bases, many of the apparent similarities between traditional Chinese and European science which attract the attention of positivists turn out to be spurious.
Inductive logic is faulty compared to Causal logic because of the Base Rate Fallacy and other related cognitive biases. Because of this, choosing inductivity before causality is just plain irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 ( talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Such arguments are beyond the scope of this article. Facts should be presented in a neutral tone and it will up to the reader to make their own judgment.
ottawakungfu (
talk)
01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be of interest to read about people who have practiced qigong for some time. Here is a site where more than 100 people have related their stories with name and photo. The site also relates to research and projects observed by medical doctors with significant result.
ArneNordgren ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)ArneNordgren
Hello all. There are some views that qigong is pseudo scientific. Some of those come from pretty well meaning Chinese people and literature. But I do feel that this article should represent more about what is meaningfully symbolic to certain cultures concerning qigong. Phdarts ( talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously people, this article drives me sick. It is so biased it pains me to see it's wikipedia content. It manipulates content in a way of making more relevant arguments made by believes of supernatural stuff. This is an encyclopedia, and not a self-help book. Even the definition of the article doesn't have sources. This is a pretty controversial article, yes - write about it in an unbiased way, talking about different groups' opinions and views. Repetitive but necessary: this is an encyclopedia.
200.158.99.250 ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, I don't really care. But to assume that the subject is made-up, false, fake, nonsense etc. to begin with, is not encyclopedic. I'm saying it should be discussed on its own terms, and its meaning clarified in relation to the dominant paradigm, rather than cast the whole thing only in terms of the dominant paradign. I see this as quite a simple and straightforward idea, and one which doesn't require any ideological struggle. It doesn't seek to diminish materialist science, but merely say "This is how qigong understands xyz, this is its ontology. Science says it's all rubbish." Readers can take their pick. Anyway, no one is looking after this article to begin with, so our talk is fairly fruitless. Best wishes.-- Asdfg 12345 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make the Qigong article any more 'skeptical'. Because honestly I have researched Qigong for many years, and when I read the Wikipedia page on it just today, I couldn't help but flinch at the bias towards the skeptical side. But that's wikipedia for you, it's 'home for the skeptics' for sure. If some of you guys would actually do some open-minded research, and read a few books written by actual descendents of true Qigong practices/traditions (rather than 'American-ized' Qigong) you would realize that every human being 'practices qigong' on some scale day-to-day. To deny Chi or Qi exists, is to completely misunderstand what Chi or Qi is. I could go deeper into the subject of Qigong, but I will stop here. Peace. 71.222.44.231 ( talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In the re-write as of June, 2010, the neutral point of view is implemented. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The final sentence of the third paragraph of the first section reads "There is a great deal of verifiable evidence (6,000 years worth) of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" The citation at the end just leads to a footnote that says "Felix Mann", and links to the WP entry on him. However, that entry reads "Mann has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians.[4]" The citation listed there takes one to a footnote and an interview with Felix Mann, in which two passages from Mann's book "Reinventing Acupuncture" are quoted: "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" (p. 14) and "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians." Clearly, Mann does not provide "...verifiable evidence...of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", as the entry would have us believe; he argues against them. Consequently, I'm striking that sentence and its contradictory footnote. Once a supporter of qigong and "meridians" can provide something resembling "verifiable evidence", they may have another crack at it. Bricology ( talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In re-write, such points are not included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI. Ikip ( talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Structure and property changes in certain materials influenced by the external qi of qigong. Claims to have produced structural changes in inanimate objects via qi. Andre ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There are reports of this phenomenon but the problem is reproducibility under control conditions. Such information is included in the re-write with the appropriate reference. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Association of qigong with practices involving spirit possession have added to establishment criticism. Some experts in China[who?] have warned against practices involving the claimed evocation of demons,..."
The "who?" is for example the selfstyled Supermaster of Falun Gong, Li Hongshi, who hints meanwhile that he is an extraterrestrial. In his writing Zhuan Falun he warns explicitly against other forms of Qi Gong, since only his invention is the only true method. Foxspirits might jump out of other Qigong books (no kidding! That is what he writes.)
That might answer the "who?" if one is willing to call Li Hongshi an expert. I don't want to change anything in the article, because I'm not so confident of my English. JonValkenberg--
92.194.4.45 (
talk)
17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement has been reworked. No explicit personal viewpoints are included in the re-write. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A single page from a David Ownby text is cited 8 times in the History section, but the title of that text has either never appeared, or has been eaten up by edits. Can someone dig up this reference and properly cite its title and publication info? Steamroller Assault ( talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I can try. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ownby is now properly referenced ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
please start discussing why is it that that article should be added to section external links. see also Guo Lin, Guolin Qigong, Walking Qigong
In general, external link is not encouraged. In general, some reference to Guo Lin is included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to a radical clean-up of this article? I have David Palmer's Qigong Fever here, and while it isn't perfect, I think there is much useful content for structuring this article. I will begin adding information from it. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Information from David Palmer, David Ownby, Ian Johnson and Nancy Chen plus many others are now referenced. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, this article should be fair in its assessment of Qigong. If the author(s) took the liberty of inserting criticism and controversy issues into this article, why not insert also the accounts of famed, established Physicists and other Scientists and Physicians who are or have become qigong practitioners? Why give credit or mention to ludicrous claims of paranormal or supra-normal activities and prowess? Why mention charlatans at all? Do we have to remind everybody that Western Medicine has its own count of charlatans, even during the 20th Century? What about psychosis and other qigong-related illnesses, all the while forgetting that psychiatrists and oncologists have their hands full of people who reacted BADLY to conventional treatments and some even died? As I said, a heavily flawed and biased article. From what I have seen and heard from otherwise skeptical (and science oriented) persons, Reiki and Qigong WORK. Period. This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are. Please, improve it. MikeLousado ( talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
New article tries to maintain a neutral point of view. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
At some point in the article, this sentence comes up: "Also known as "qigong deviation" (氣功偏差) among psychiatrists, the condition could cause, in extremis, death through delusions of omnipotence." The sentence quoted above is intended as detrimental, but a simple investigation reveals how flawed it is. Qigong deviation is a Transliteration of mental disturbance caused by qigong practice. According to Chinese medical literature, the term for this is exactly zhuhuo rumo, which literally means "inner fire out of control" or "entering the realm of Mara". This is also a qigong term for patients suffering from mental illnesses.
If one digs deeper, it becomes obvious that this "deviation" is caused, according to Chinese qigong-literature, by misdirected use of Chi. Meaning, the justification for this criticism lies in the badly application of chi/prana. MikeLousado ( talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The article remains a neutral point of view. Both the advantage and disadvantage of qigong are included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to restructure the entire article of qigong to make it more encyclopedic. Here are a summary and rationale for the changes we have made (this section will be updated periodically)
Revision completed. Please keep the article in a neutral point of view! ottawakungfu ( talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Just want to say THANK YOU for the fabulously improved article. The difference is like night and day. Much appreciated!! Anahata9 ( talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The problems with this article are not repairable. The trouble is in the concept and beliefs of those who advocate Qi Gong.
Quoted from the discussion thread above. "...This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are...." MikeLousado;
"...skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed...." author unclear.
Understand what those beliefs are. If you wave your arms and legs in unison with a small group of people you command powerful supernatural forces. It doesn't matter how you state it that is the belief of this system.
The concept is nonsense and borderline psychotic. But these people function normally except for these strange beliefs. They claim and do experience psychiatric symptoms they understand as Qi Gong working.
VisionAndPsychosis.Net explained why this happens in 2003. The meditating moving people form an engine for Subliminal Distraction exposure. There is no magic or Chee involved.
Subliminal Distraction, a normal feature in our physiology of sight, was discovered to cause mental breaks for office workers forty years ago. The cubicle was designed to deal with the phenomenon by 1968. This exposure will alter your ability to think and reason critically . That's why there are the claims of supernatural outcomes from performing this exercise.
Anyone with full mental capability would not make such claims. Long term users of Qi Gong have altered mental states so that they can believe this nonsense.
There is no way to resolve these two points at issue. One claims supernaturally acquired benefits and the other says the claimed benefits are nonexistent and an expected outcome from performing this at-risk activity.
An example of these outcomes can be see in the experience of 14 Ontario schools where students have bizarre symptoms after Wi-Fi was installed and they began to use laptop computers anywhere they wanted to sit rather than observe Cubicle Level Protection while using the computers. Students have headaches, dizziness, trouble sleeping, memory loss, and strange skin sensations. Symptoms disappear on weekends and school vacations. The experience shows the wide range of symptoms SD exposure can cause. When Qi Gong users begin to have symptoms they understand it is Qi Gong working.(The Cubicle solved this exposure problem when mental breaks appeared in business offices in the 1960's.)
There are examples of other outcomes from Subliminal Distraction exposure at VisionAndPsychosis.Net. I am the copyright holder for that site.
24.96.50.139 ( talk) 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)L K Tucker
REPLY on 6/21/2011 out of sequence with talk page history. Subliminal Distraction exposure can happen anywhere. The Landmark Education mental breaks show that classrooms can cause limited SD exposure. The people who perform Qi Gong alone have SD exposure at another place then associate the symptoms of SD exposure with Qi Gong because of their altered belief system that Qi Gong is effective. With Culture Bound Syndromes ethnic based mental events are understood and believed to be caused by something in the local culture. Ghost Sickness was believed to be caused by too close contact with the dead. Too-small single-room living arrangements of Native Americans allowed SD exposure. Examination of the Startle Matching Behaviors show the believed "cultural mental events" actually cross cultural and ethnic boundaries. They are only named locally because when a SD caused mental events happens it is experienced in terms of local culture. The belief in the efficacy of Qi Gong is an unrecognized mental disorder. L K Tucker 24.96.50.245 ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just have to say this article is hilarious. I've never seen such a credulous article on Wikipedia(!) that so fully incorporates the mystical and supernatural beliefs of a religion as the facts of its "science" and history.
Breathing and exercises are excellent stuff for overall wellness, but the quackery in this article is best described as evil. 174.99.110.64 ( talk) 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just overflew this, have to agree with everyone who thinks that this article isn't nearly neutral enough. This whole thing is slanted hideously in favour of qi gong and doesn't even bother concealing that. I'd fix it up myself, but since I know from experience that this kind of thing always ends up being resolved in favour of the "wiki-squatter" who thinks he owns the article, I'm not even going to bother. I just hope a moderator or someone else in charge sees this soon, this whole article is an enormous embarrassment for Wikipedia. -- 188.98.180.151 ( talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yiquan is not Qigong!
Raed description about Yiquan on Wikipedia:
"Yiquan is essentially formless, containing no fixed sets of fighting movements or techniques. Instead, focus is put on developing one's natural movement and fighting abilities through a system of training methods and concepts, working to improve the perception of one's body, its movement, and of force. Yiquan is also set apart from other eastern martial arts in that traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, the reason being that understanding one's true nature happens in the present, and that preconceptions block this process." Part of Yiquan caled ZhangZhuang viewed from the outside reminds Qigong, but traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, since 1938. The Link:
"Yiquan, a Chinese martial art derived from xingyiquan, is a strong proponent of stance training.[93] "
suggests something else.
LG Ch. Ratka — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKRatka ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Before the four official forms of "energy-work" or QiGong existed (as approved of by the government of China, there was Dao Yin, as internal martial arts was known. The Silk Scroll found at MaWangDui contains 44 forms of Dao Yin. I have studied "the Five Animal Frolics"; "the Eight Pieces of Brocade"; "the Six Healing Sounds"; and looked into "the Yijinjing". I find no resemblence between these and my poster of the MaWangDui DaoYin positions. The comment that they are similar leads many not to look for themselves. Many books are written that dwell on the way energy flows through the human body. "Manufactured History" is the Chinese way of describing the effect of getting lost in the commentary about a topic, or in mysticism related to a part of Chinese culture. One never hears a simple, "no" or a "just practice". One is gotten lost in "manufactured History". Some teachers deal with questions that are seen as disrespectful, doubting in their nature in this way. Tales of immortality are another form of "Manufactured History". America has a bit of it rubbing off from "experts" who write books that lose the point. Often a simple video or DVD will teach all one needs to know for the first three years of practice. After a foundation is built, then respectfully ask a question. Teachers need not "prove" a point. My point with this long winded paragraph is that a Western "Expert" has discouraged many from looking for themselves at a piece of archeology from 168 B.C. that cannot be doubted in favor of a modern source. Ward68 ( talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
One should know, that there not any actual evidence to support the claim that qigong can be a cause of psychosis, or any other mental disorder. That someone write a book about it, does not mean that the person deliver actual evidence. Observation followed by speculation is not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.218.140 ( talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this article with a few maintenance tags. I also intend - with a bit of help - to completely re-write it. This entire subject needs to be a approached from a reliable scientific perspective. The Cavalry ( Message me) 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Placed here to be accessible, but out of way of rewrite discussion.
Scientific Review
Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.
Some References to Consider
Adler, P. A., & Roberts, B. L. (2006). The use of tai chi to improve health in older adults. Orthopaedic Nursing, 25(2), 122-126.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2004). Physical activity and bone health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, January 23, 2008-1985; 1996.
Audette, J. F., Jin, Y. S., Newcomer, R., Stein, L., Duncan, G., & Frontera, W. R. (2006). Tai chi versus brisk walking in elderly women. Age & Ageing, 35(4), 388-93.
Baranowski, T., Perry, C. L., & Parcel, G. S. (2002). How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social cognitive theory. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. (3rd ed., pp. 8). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Barrow, D. E., Bedford, A., Ives, G., O'Toole, L., & Channer, K. S. (2007). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi chuan and chi kung training in patients with symptomatic heart failure: A randomised controlled pilot study. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83(985), 717-21.
Brismee, J., Paige, R. L., Chyu, M., Boatright, J. D., Hagar, J. M., McCaleb, J. A., et al. (2007). Group and home-based tai chi in elderly subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(2), 99-111.
Burini, D., Farabollini, B., Iacucci, S., Rimatori, C., Riccardi, G., Capecci, M., et al. (2006). A randomized controlled cross-over trial of aerobic training versus qigong in advanced parkinson's disease. Europa Medicophysica, 42(3), 231-8.
Chan, K., Qin, L., Lau, M., Woo, J., Au, S., Choy, W., et al. (2004). A randomized, prospective study of the effects of tai chi chun exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85(5), 717-22.
Channer, K. S., Barrow, D., Barrow, R., Osborne, M., & Ives, G. (1996). Changes in haemodynamic parameters following tai chi chuan and aerobic exercise in patients recovering from acute myocardial infarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 72(848), 349- 51.
Chen, H. H., Yeh, M. L., & Lee, F. Y. (2006). The effects of baduanjin qigong in the prevention of bone loss for middle-aged women. The Ameriacn Journal of Chinese Medicine, 34(5), 741-747.
Chen, K., & Yeung, R. (2002). A review of qigong therapy for cancer treatment. Journal of International Society of Life Information Science, 20(2), 532-542.
Cheng, T. (2006). Tai chi: The chinese ancient wisdom of an ideal exercise for cardiac patients. International Journal of Cardiology, 117, 293-295.
Cheung, B. M. Y., Lo, J. L. F., Fong, D. Y. T., Chan, M. Y., Wong, S. H. T., Wong, V. C. W., et al. (2005). Randomised controlled trial of qigong in the treatment of mild essential hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension, 19(9), 697-704.
Chodzko-Zajko, W., Jahnke, R. and Working Group. (2005). National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and Tai Chi: Consensus Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 14-16. (Larkey, L.K: Working/Writing Group member).
Choi, J. H., Moon, J., & Song, R. (2005). Effects of sun-style tai chi exercise on physical fitness and fall prevention in fall-prone older adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(2), 150-7.
Chou, K., Lee, P. W. H., Yu, E. C. S., Macfarlane, D., Cheng, Y., Chan, S. S. C., et al. (2004). Effect of tai chi on depressive symptoms amongst chinese older patients with depressive disorders: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19(11), 1105-7.
Elder, C., Ritenbaugh, C., Mist, S., Aickin, M., Schneider, J., Zwickey, H., et al. (2007). Randomized trial of two mind-body interventions for weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 13(1), 67-78.
Faber, M. J., Bosscher, R. J., Chin A Paw, M. J., & van Wieringen, P. C. (2006). Effects of exercise programs on falls and mobility in frail and pre-frail older adults: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87(7), 885-96.
Fransen, M., Nairn, L., Winstanley, J., Lam, P., & Edmonds, J. (2007). Physical activity for osteoarthritis management: A randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating hydrotherapy or tai chi classes. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 57(3), 407-14.
Freemont, A. J., & Hoyland, J. A. (2007). Morphology, mechanisms and pathology of musculoskeletal ageing, 211(2), 252-259.
Galantino, M. L., Shepard, K., Krafft, L., Laperriere, A., Ducette, J., Sorbello, A., et al. (2005). The effect of group aerobic exercise and t'ai chi on functional outcomes and quality of life for persons living with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 11(6), 1085-92.
Gatts, S. K., & Woollacott, M. H. (2006). Neural mechanisms underlying balance improvement with short term tai chi training. Aging-Clinical & Experimental Research, 18(1), 7-19.
Gemmell, C., & Leathem, J. M. (2006). A study investigating the effects of tai chi chuan: Individuals with traumatic brain injury compared to controls. Brain Injury, 20(2), 151-156.
Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., Kelley, M. E., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., et al. (2007). Tai chi and perceived health status in older adults who are transitionally frail: A randomized controlled trial. Physical Therapy, 87(5), 525-35.
Hammond, A., & Freeman, K. (2006). Community patient education and exercise for people with fibromyalgia: A parallel group randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(10), 835-46.
Hart, J., Kanner, H., Gilboa-Mayo, R., Haroeh-Peer, O., Rozenthul-Sorokin, N., & Eldar, R. (2004). Tai chi chuan practice in community-dwelling persons after stroke. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27(4), 303-4.
Hartman, C. A., Manos, T. M., Winter, C., Hartman, D. M., Li, B., & Smith, J. C. (2000). Effects of T'ai chi training on function and quality of life indicators in older adults with osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(12), 1553-9.
Hass, C. J., Gregor, R. J., Waddell, D. E., Oliver, A., Smith, D. W., Fleming, R. P., et al. (2004). The influence of tai chi training on the center of pressure trajectory during gait initiation in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(10), 1593-1598.
Hogan, M. (2005). Physical and cognitive activity and exercise for older adults: A review. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60(2), 95-126.
Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., & Oxman, M. N. (2007). Augmenting immune responses to varicella zoster virus in older adults: A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 511-7.
Irwin, M. R., Pike, J. L., Cole, J. C., & Oxman, M. N. (2003). Effects of a behavioral intervention, tai chi chih, on varicella-zoster virus specific immunity and health functioning in older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 824-30.
Irwin, M., Pike, J., & Oxman, M. (2004). Shingles immunity and health functioning in the elderly: Tai chi chih as a behavioral treatment. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(3), 223-232.
Jahnke, R. (2002). The healing promise of qi: Creating extraordinary wellness through qigong and tai chi. Chicago, Il: Contemporary Books.
Jin, P. (1992). Efficacy of tai chi, brisk walking, meditation, and reading in reducing mental and emotional stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 36(4), 361-370.
Jones, B. M. (2001). Changes in cytokine production in healthy subjects practicing guolin qigong: A pilot study. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(8), September 29, 2008.
Judge, J. O., Lindsey, C., Underwood, M., & Winsemius, D. (1993). Balance improvements in older women: Effects of exercise training. Physical Therapy, 73, 254-265.
Kemp, C. A. (2004). Qigong as a therapeutic intervention with older adults. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 22(4), 351-373.
Kutner, N. G., Barnhart, H., Wolf, S. L., McNeely, E., & Xu, T. (1997). Self-report benefits of tai chi practice by older adults. Journals of Gerontology, 52B(5), P242-6. Lan, C., Lai, J. S., & Chen, S. Y. (2002). Tai chi chuan: An ancient wisdom on exercise and health promotion. Sports Medicine, 32(4), 217-224.
Lan, C., Chou, S., Chen, S., Lai, J., & Wong, M. (2004). The aerobic capacity and ventilatory efficiency during exercise in qigong and tai chi chuan practitioners. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 32(1), 141-50.
Lansinger, B., Larsson, E., Persson, L.,C., & Carosson, J.,Y. (2007). Qigong and exercise therapy in patients with long-term neck pain: A prospective randomized trial. Spine, 32(22), 2415-2422.
Larkey, L., Jahnke, R., Etnier, J., & Gonzalez, J. (in press). Meditative movement as a category of exercise: Implications for research. Journal of Physical Activity & Health,
Lee, L. Y. K., Lee, D. T. F., & Woo, J. (2007). Effect of tai chi on state self-esteem and health- related quality of life in older chinese residential care home residents. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(8), 1580-2.
Lee, M. S., Jeong, S. M., Kim, Y. K., Park, K. W., Lee, M. S., Ryu, H., et al. (2003). Qi-training enhances respiratory burst function and adhesive capacity of neutrophils in young adults: A preliminary study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(1), 141-148.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review. Rheumatology, 46(11), 1648-51.
Lee, M. S., Chen, K. W., Sancier, K. M., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for cancer treatment: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Acta Oncologica, 46(6), 717-22.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Is tai chi an effective adjunct in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15(6), 597-601.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Guo, R., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for hypertension: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Hypertension, 25(8), 1525-32.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for cardiovascular disease and its risk factors: A systematic review. Journal of Hypertension, 25(9), 1974-5.
Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Choi, E. S., & Chung, H. T. (2003). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, blood pressure determinants and ventilatory function in middle-aged patients with essential hypertension. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(3), 489-497.
Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Kim, H. J., & Choi, E. S. (2004). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other lipid levels in essential hypertension patients. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 777-786.
Lee, M. S., Lim, H. J., & Lee, M. S. (2004). Impact of qigong exercise on self-efficacy and other cognitive perceptual variables in patients with essential hypertension. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 10(4), 675-680.
Lee, M., Soo Lee, M., Kim, H., & Moon, S. (2003). Qigong reduced blood pressure and catecholamine levels of patients with essential hypertension. International Journal of Neuroscience, 113(12), 1691.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2005). Falls self-efficacy as a mediator of fear of falling in an exercise intervention for older adults. Journals of Gerontology.Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60B(1), P34-40.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & Shirai, M. (2003). A simpler eight-form easy tai chi for elderly adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11(2), 206-18.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Chaumeton, N. R., Duncan, T., & Duncan, S. (2002). Tai chi as a means to enhance self-esteem: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 21(1), 70-89.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., & McAuley, E. (2004). Tai chi: Improving functional balance and predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(12), 2046-2052.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., McAuley, E., Chaumeton, N., Eckstrom, E., et al. (2005). Tai chi and fall reductions in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology.Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60A(2), 187-194.
Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Chaumeton, N., et al. (2001). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi exercise on physical function among older persons: A randomized contolled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 139-46.
Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Fisher, K. J., Duncan, T. E., & Duncan, S. C. (2001). Tai chi, self-efficacy, and physical function in the elderly. Prevention Science, 2(4), 229-39.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., Irbe, D., Tearse, R. G., & Weimer, C. (2004). Tai chi and self- rated quality of sleep and daytime sleepiness in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(6), 892-900.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2002). Delineating the impact of tai chi training on physical function among the elderly. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2 Suppl), 92-7.
Li, J. X., Hong, Y., & Chan, K. M. (2001). Tai chi: Physiological characteristics and beneficial effects on health. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(3), 148-56.
Li, Z. Q., & Shen, Q. (1995). The impact of the performance of wu's tai chi chuan on the activity of natural killer cells in peripheral blood in the elderly. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, (14), 53-56.
Maciaszek, J., Osiski, W., Szeklicki, R., & Stemplewski, R. (2007). Effect of tai chi on body balance: Randomized controlled trial in men with osteopenia or osteoporosis. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(1), 1-9.
Maddalozzo, G. F., & Snow, C. M. (2000). High intensity resistance training: Effects on bone in older men and women. Calcified Tissue International, 66(6), 399-404.
Mannerkorpi, K., Arndorw, M., Mannerkorpi, K., & Arndorw, M. (2004). Efficacy and feasibility of a combination of body awareness therapy and qigong in patients with fibromyalgia: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(6), 279-81.
Mansky, P., Sannes, T., Wallerstedt, D., Ge, A., Ryan, M., Johnson, L. L., et al. (2006). Tai chi chuan: Mind-body practice or exercise intervention? studying the benefit for cancer survivors. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 5(3), 192-201.
Manzaneque, J. M., Vera, F. M., Maldonado, E. F., Carranque, G., Cubero, V. M., Morell, M., et al. (2004). Assessment of immunological parameters following a qigong training program. Medical Science Monitor, 10(6), CR264-70.
Matsuda, S., Martin, D., & Yu, T. (2005). Ancient exercise for modern rehab: Tai chi promotes wellness and fitness among a wide range of patients. Rehab Management: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Rehabilitation, 18(2), 24-27.
McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Parker, S. W., Scarborough, D. M., Wayne, P. M., & Wolf, S. L. (2005). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation improve vestibulopathic gait via different neuromuscular mechanisms: Preliminary report. BMC Neurology, 5(1), 3.
McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Wayne, P. M., Scarborough, D. M., & Parker, S. W. (2004). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation effects on gaze and whole-body stability. Journal of Vestibular Research, 14(6), 467-78.
Morales, F. J., Martinez, A., Mendez, M., Agarrado, A., Ortega, F., Fernandez-Guerra, J., et al. (1999). A shuttle walk test for assessment of functional capacity in chronic heart failure. American Heart Journal, 138, 291-298.
Motivala, S. J., Sollers, J., Thayer, J., & Irwin, M. R. (2006). Tai chi chih acutely decreases sympathetic nervous system activity in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A- Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(11), 1177-80.
Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., Gill, D. L., Roscoe, J. A., Lang, D., & Murphy, K. (2004). Tai chi chuan, health-related quality of life and self-esteem: A randomized trial with breast cancer survivors. Supportive Care in Cancer, 12(12), 871-6.
Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., & Zhao, H. (2006). A pilot study to assess the influence of tai chi chuan on functional capacity among breast cancer survivors. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 4(3), 139-45.
Nowalk, M. P., Prendergast, J. M., Bayles, C. M., D'Amico, F. J., & Colvin, G. C. (2001). A randomized trial of exercise programs among older individuals living in two long-term care facilities: The FallsFREE program. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(7), 859- 65.
Orr, R., Tsang, T., Lam, P., Comino, E., & Singh, M. F. (2006). Mobility impairment in type 2 diabetes: Association with muscle power and effect of tai chi intervention. Diabetes Care, 29(9), 2120-2.
Pippa, L., Manzoli, L., Corti, I., Congedo, G., Romanazzi, L., & Parruti, G. (2007). Functional capacity after traditional chinese medicine (qi gong) training in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: A randomized controlled trial. Preventive Cardiology, 10(1), 22-5.
Rogers, C. E., Larkey, L. K., & Keller, C. (2009). A review of clinical trials of tai chi and qigong in older adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(2), 245-279.
Ryu, H., Jun, C. D., Lee, B. S., Choi, B. M., Kim, H. M., & Chung, H. T. (1995). Effects of qigong training on proportions of T lymphocyte subsets in human peripheral blood. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 23(1), 27-36.
Ryu, H., Mo, H. Y., Mo, G. D., Choi, B. M., Jun, C. D., Seo, C. M., et al. (1995). Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in qigong (chun do sun bup) trainees by multitest cell mediated immunity. American Journal of Chinese, 23(2), 139-144.
Sancier, K. M. (1996). Medical applications of qigong. Alternative Therapies, 2(1), 40-46. Sancier, K. M. (1999). Therapeutic benefits of qigong exercises in combination with drugs. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 5(4), 383-389.
Sancier, K. M., & Hu, B. (1991). Medical applications of qigong and emitted qi on humans, animals, cell cultures, and plants. American Journal of Acupuncture, 19(4), 367-377.
Sattin, R. W. (1992). Falls among older persons: A public health perspective. Annual Review of Public Health, 13(1), 489-508.
Sattin, R. W., Easley, K. A., Wolf, S. L., Chen, Y., & Kutner, M. H. (2005). Reduction in fear of falling through intense tai chi exercise training in older, transitionally frail adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(7), 1168-1178.
Shen, C., Williams, J. S., Chyu, M., Paige, R. L., Stephens, A. L., Chauncey, K. B., et al. (2007). Comparison of the effects of tai chi and resistance training on bone metabolism in the elderly: A feasibility study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(3), 369-81.
Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2003). Effects of tai chi exercise on pain, balance, muscle strength, and perceived difficulties in physical functioning in older women with osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(9), 2039-44.
Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2007). Effects of a sun-style tai chi exercise on arthritic symptoms, motivation and the performance of health behaviors in women with osteoarthritis. Daehan Ganho Haghoeji, 37(2), 249-56.
Spirduso, W. W., Francis, K. L., & MacRae, P. G. (2005). Physical dimensions of aging (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stenlund, T., Lindstrom, B., Granlund, M., & Burell, G. (2005). Cardiac rehabilitation for the elderly: Qi gong and group discussions. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, 12(1), 5-11.
Sun, X. S., Xu, Y. G., & Xia, Y. J. (1989). Determination of e-rosette-forming lymphocyte in aged subjects with tai ji quan exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 10(3), 217- 219.
Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Froelicher, E. S. (2004). The effectiveness of tai chi exercise in improving aerobic capacity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(1), 48- 57.
Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Haskell, W. L. (2007). Tai chi exercise and stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 14(4), 9-22.
Thomas, G. N., Hong, A. W. L., Tomlinson, B., Lau, E., Lam, C. W. K., Sanderson, J. E., et al. (2005). Effects of tai chi and resistance training on cardiovascular risk factors in elderly chinese subjects: A 12-month longitudinal, randomized, controlled intervention study. Clinical Endocrinology, 63(6), 663-9.
Tsai, J., Wang, W., Chan, P., Lin, L., Wang, C., Tomlinson, B., et al. (2003). The beneficial effects of tai chi chuan on blood pressure and lipid profile and anxiety in a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 9(5), 747-754.
Tsang, H. W. H., Fung, K. M. T., Chan, A. S. M., Lee, G., & Chan, F. (2006). Effect of a qigong exercise programme on elderly with depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(9), 890-7.
Tsang, H. W. H., Mok, C. K., Yeung, Y. T. A., & Chan, S. Y. C. (2003). The effect of qigong on general and psychosocial health of elderly with chronic physical illnesses: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(5), 441-9.
Tsang, T., Orr, R., Lam, P., Comino, E.,J., & Singh, M. F. (2007). Health benefits of tai chi for older patients with type 2 diabetes: The "move it for diabetes study"- A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(3), 429-439.
Verhagen, A. P., Immink, M., van der Meulen, A., & Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A. (2004). The efficacy of tai chi chuan in older adults: A systematic review. Family Practice, 21(1), 107- 13.
Voukelatos, A., Cumming, R. G., Lord, S. R., & Rissel, C. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi for the prevention of falls: The central sydney tai chi trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(8), 1185-91.
Wang, C., Roubenoff, R., Lau, J., Kalish, R., Schmid, C. H., Tighiouart, H., et al. (2005). Effect of tai chi in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 44(5), 685-7.
Wang, C., Collet, J. P., & Lau, J. (2004). The effect of tai chi on health outcomes in patients with chronic conditions: A systematic review.[see comment]. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(5), 493-501.
Wayne, P. M., Kiel, D. P., Krebs, D. E., Davis, R. B., Savetsky-German, J., Connelly, M., et al. (2007). The effects of tai chi on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 88(5), 673-80.
Wayne, P. M., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Gill-Body, K. M., Scarborough, D., McGibbon, C. A., et al. (2004). Can tai chi improve vestibulopathic postural control? Archives of Physical and Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85, 142-152.
Drs R. Jahnke and L. Larkey - A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi – accepted with revisions, by 52 The Am. Journal of Health Promotion. Do not circulate without the direct permission of the lead author.
Wenneberg, S., Gunnarsson, L., & Ahlstrom, G. (2004). Using a novel exercise programme for patients with muscular dystrophy. part II: A quantitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(10), 595-602.
Winsmann, F. (2005). The effect of tai chi chuan meditation on dissociation in a group of veterans. (Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University). Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology, 147.
Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Ellison, G. L., & Coogler, C. E. (1997). The effect of tai chi quan and computerized balance training on postural stability in older subjects. atlanta FICSIT group. frailty and injuries: Cooperative studies on intervention techniques. Physical Therapy, 77(4), 371-81.
Wolf, S. L., Coogler, C., & Xu, T. (1997). Exploring the basis for tai chi chuan as a therapeutic exercise approach. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(8), 886-92.
Wolf, S. L., O'Grady, M., Easley, K. A., Guo, Y., Kressig, R. W., & Kutner, M. (2006). The influence of intense tai chi training on physical performance and hemodynamic outcomes in transitionally frail, older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A-Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(2), 184-189.
Wolf, S. L., Sattin, R. W., Kutner, M., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., & Gregor, R. J. (2003a). Intense tai chi exercise training and fall occurrences in older, transitionally frail adults: A randomized, controlled trial... includes commentary by lavery L and studenski S. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1693-701, 1804-5.
Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Kutner, N. G., McNeely, E., Coogler, C., Xu, T., et al. (2003b). Selected as the best paper in the 1990s: Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: An investigation of tai chi and computerized balance training. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1794-803.
Woo, J., Hong, A., Lau, E., & Lynn, H. (2007). A randomised controlled trial of tai chi and resistance exercise on bone health, muscle strength and balance in community-living elderly people. Age & Ageing, 36(3), 262-8.
World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. Second World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, Spain.
Xu, S. W., & Wang, W. J. (1986). A study of the effects of tai ji quan on endocrinology. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 150-151.
Yang, Y., Verkuilen, J., Rosengren, K. S., Mariani, R. A., Reed, M., Grubisich, S. A., et al. (2007). Effects of a taiji and qigong intervention on the antibody response to influenza vaccine in older adults. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(4), 597-607.
Yeh, G. Y., Wood, M. J., Lorell, B. H., Stevenson, L. W., Eisenberg, D. M., Wayne, P. M., et al. (2004). Effects of tai chi mind-body movement therapy on functional status and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Medicine, 117(8), 541-8.
Young, D. R., Appel, L. J., Jee, S., & Miller, E. R.,3rd. (1999). The effects of aerobic exercise and tai chi on blood pressure in older people: Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(3), 277-84.
Zhang, G. D. (1990). The impacts of 48-form tai chi chuan and yi qi yang fei gong on the serum levels of IgG, gM, IgA, and IgE in human. Journal of Beijing Institute of Physical Education, 4, 12-14.
Zhang, J., IshikawaTakata, K., Yamazaki, H., Morita, T., & Ohta, T. (2006). The effects of tai chi chuan on physiological function and fear of falling in the less robust elderly: An intervention study for preventing falls. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 42(2), 107- 116.
Zugck, C., Kruger, C., & Durr, S. (2000). Is the 6 minute walk test a reliable substitute for peak oxygen uptake in patients with dialated cardiomyopathy? European Heart Journal, 21, 540- 549.
Some Web Resources
• Canada Qigong Research Society ( http://canadaqigong.org)
• Chi Center, Petaluma, CA ( http://www.chicenter.com)
• Energy Arts, Fairfax, CA ( http://www.energyarts.com)
• Literati Tradition, YeYoung Culture Studies ( http://www.literati-tradition.com/qi_gong_and_tai_chi.html)
• Pangu Shengong, San Francisco, CA ( http://www.pangu.org/english)
• Radiant Lotus Qigong, Kahuna Valley, HI ( http://www.radiantlotusqigong.com)
• Qigong Institute, Los Altos, CA ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org)
• Qigong Research and Practice Center, Nederland, CO ( http://www.qigonghealing.com)
• Qigong Research Society, Mt Laurel, NJ ( http://www.qigongresearchsociety.com)
• Qigong T'ai chi ch'uan Article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi_chuan)
• Qigong Wikipedia Article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong)
• Wuji Productions ( http://www.wujiproductions.com)
Some News about Qigong (from Qigong Institute)
The Harvard Health Review: The Harvard Health Review calls Tai Chi "medication in motion" and describes how tai chi when combined with standard treatment is helpful for a range of conditions including arthritis, low bone density, breast cancer, heart disease, heart failure, hypertension, Parkinson's disease, sleep problems, and stroke. Harvard Medical School, Harvard Health Publications, May, 2009 ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/May/The-health-benefits-of-tai-chi)
Wall Street Journal: 'Alternative' Medicine Is Mainstream - The evidence is mounting that diet and lifestyle (including practices such as Qigong, Tai Chi, and Yoga) are the best cures for our worst afflictions. Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJ010909.pdf)
Time Magazine: "Tai Chi is the perfect exercise". Time Magazine July 31, 2002 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TimeMag31Jul02.pdf)
New York Times: "The face of exercise is changing in America. Instead of relentlessly pursuing a sculptured physique, people are chasing longevity, stress reduction and improved health through mind-body practices like qigong. The realm of working out has shifted from people just wanting to build bulk and lean, toned muscles to them understanding that the inner health of the body is just as important as the outer health." New York Times April 5, 2007 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/NYTimes5Apr07.pdf)
Wall Street Journal: The Next Yoga: a Sweat-Free Workout Giving Up on Perfect Pecs, Boomers Embrace Qigong -- Is Qigong Tiger Wood's Secret Weapon? Wall Street Journal May 13, 2003 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJournal13May03.pdf)
Los Angeles Times: A new study published in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society describes the "striking immunity-boosting effect" of Tai Chi, the most well-known moving form of Qigong. Tai Chi "builds aerobic conditioning. It relaxes the body's response to stress, which tends to intensify as people age. And it increases the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain". Los Angeles Times April 24, 2007 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/LATimes24Apr07.pdf)
US News and World Report: "Tai chi, the most famous branch of Qigong, or exercises that harness the qi (life energy, pronounced "chee"), has been linked to health benefits for virtually everyone from children to seniors. Researchers aren't sure exactly how, but studies show that tai chi improves the quality of life for breast cancer patients and Parkinson's sufferers. Its combination of martial arts movements and deep breathing can be adapted even for people in wheelchairs. And it has shown promise in treating sleep problems and high blood pressure." US News & World Report, November 26, 2010 ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/pain/articles/2010/11/26/for-health-benefits-try-tai-chi.html)
Pmrich ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's focus on scientific basis, including randomized controlled trials concerning health benefits:
Scientific Review
Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.
Pmrich ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
References moved to separate section to keep page readable
is a Mayo Clinic study biased? why is this not included in the wiki article? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160 http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies Shape55 ( talk) 05:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Priorities:
Pmrich ( talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There are some sections in the chinese qigong page that are worth putting in the English version also. (e.g Qigong classification 分类 3.1 硬氣功 3.2 軟氣功 , Qigong branches 氣功的派別 4.1 吐納 4.2 禪定 4.3 存想 4.4 內丹 4.5 導引術 , The sensations of Qi 氣感) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.46.141 ( talk) 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What would it take to resolve the problems on this article?
Its references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Tagged since September 2011. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since September 2011. Its tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. Tagged since September 2011.
A tall wishlist, indeed. But it seems like something worth working on. Is there anyone else actively editing this page? The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Traditionally, qigong training has been esoteric and secretive, with knowledge passed from master to student. Over the centuries, the exchange of ideas between various elements within Chinese society has created a more unified overview of qigong practice even though each segment maintains its own detailed interpretations and methods. In China, the emphasis has shifted increasingly on health benefits, traditional medicine, and scientific perspective, with decreasing emphasis on traditional aspects of qigong practice, though with notable exceptions.
In contrast, while most practitioners worldwide also focus on health benefits, many have also accepted the philosophical elements of qigong practice and pay homage to its rich past. The traditional philosophical, medical, and martial arts origins are recognized and used as justification for the effectiveness of qigong. [1]
... This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, qigong studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects. Research has not been conducted to evaluate the importance of different facets of qigong practice such as exercise, meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, depth of practice, and difference in forms.
The article has quotation marks around the word "scientific" throughout the article. These need to be removed. Quotes are usually meant to express sarcasm or doubt. Sarcasm has no place, and doubt needs to be expanded in the text, not left unexplained. Greenman ( talk) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907), the term qigong as it is currently used was coined in the Maoist era of the 1950s, specifically in the 1957 book "Experience in Healing with Qi Gong" by Liu Guizhen 劉貴珍 (1920–1982) to emphasize health and scientific approaches, while avoiding association with ancient spiritual practices and mysticism. [2]
suggest to rephrase
" Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "
as
" Although the term qigong (氣功) has been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "
《太清調氣經》:“服氣功餘暇,取靜室無人處,散發脫衣,...” - 隋唐間著作
气功标准教程, 北京体育大学出版社, 第1版 (2006年9月1日), ISBN: 7811005409
119.236.12.247 ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Author: Yang Bai Long. Date: 2006. Title: 气功标准教程 Qi gong biao zhun jiao cheng = Qigong Standard Guide. Publisher: 北京体育大学出版社 Beijing ti yu da xue chu ban she = Beijing Sports University Press.
The natural Qi regulation scripture(太清調氣經) is one of the books in the Orthodox Taoist Canon ( Daozang). The term qigong is used in the following sentence
... 煉氣法又因服氣功,餘暇取靜室無人處,...
translated as
... (We) 煉practice氣the qi法method又因for服the ingesting氣 qi功 gong (skill). 餘暇 At leisure, 取 find靜室 a quiet room無人處 without people. …
The term ingesting Qi (服氣) is used throughout the book and is a qigong method by regulating breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.12.82 ( talk) 03:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In the 1990s Li Hongzhi filled a "spiritual void" by introducing Falun Gong, which included qigong exercises and teachings that renewed emphasis on spirituality, morality, and the supernatural. Popularity of Falun Gong grew rapidly, and in 1999 was banned as a "heretical organization" and "cult". [3] [4]
More text to consider - already in Qigong history and Falun gong. Vitalforce ( talk) 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's work together to resolve the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) dispute. As rewritten does the article now conform with NPOV guidelines and could we remove the NPOV tag? If you feel the article still does not maintain a NPOV please "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" and "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article". Vitalforce ( talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Remove Tai chi section: Creating a section on taichi under definition is misleading. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many forms of Qigong. Why should we specifically compare taichai and qigong under the definition section. Shouldn't we create a separate comparision table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Add table comparing qigong and other exercise: The following has been classified as original research, unreferenced and undone. I thought these are well understood. Can someone be kind enough to help to find some reference or help to create a better table to give Qigong a better perspective?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 6 March 2012
Qigong | Yoga | Stretching Exercise | Strength Exercise | Martial Art (Kung Fu) | Meditation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Muscle training (direct or indirect) | Emphasized | Emphasized | ||||
Tendon stretching | Emphasized | Emphasized | ||||
Deep relaxation | Emphasized | Emphasized | Emphasized | |||
Mental focus on body parts | Emphasized | |||||
Breathing control | Emphasized | |||||
Fighting and defense | Emphasized | |||||
Breathing frequency | Decrease | Increase | Increase | |||
Heart beat | Increase | Increase | ||||
Improve blood circulation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Religious association | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary |
Add qi "experiment": People can read through the article but not knowing what actually Qi and Qigong is. I tried to put a description of a simple experiment but it has been removed by a robot which considered it as vandalism. The original description is as follows:
Add qualifier about martial arts: This statement "The practice of qigong is an important component in Chinese martial arts." should be rephrased to "The practice of qigong is an important component in SOME Chinese martial arts". There are many forms martial arts which do not have a Qigong component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.44.131 ( talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Rewording: "A person is believed to become ill or die when qi becomes diminished or unbalanced. " --> suggest to rephrase as "It is believed that a person will become ill when Qi becomes unbalanced and a person will die if qi is exhausted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.189.2 ( talk) 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The oldest discovered Qigong diagram is from the western Han dynasty Mawangdui tomb (206 BCE– 9 BC). The diagram is named " Tao Yin Diagram".
http://chimed.cmu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=789
1974年湖南長沙馬王堆三號漢墓出土的《導引圖》,是現存最早的一卷保健運動的工筆彩色畫。這是西元前3世紀末的作品,相當於中國西漢前期。
119.236.12.247 ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There's barely anything in this article to stop readers coming away with the idea that qigong is just another pilates. The whole big deal about qigong (according to all sorts of books, not just me) is that the kind of feelings it produces don't stop at "I feel exercised". They can also include "There is a tangible field of warm tingling energy in my hand that I can draw up and down my arm at will". Qigong's abstractions have experiential basis. I'm no qigong expert, but still come away from this article feeling that its authors just don't get it. 92.30.13.19 ( talk) 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.125.110.120 ( talk) 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Qigong has been purported to enhance health and well-being with many benefits, including improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. [5] Many of these claims are supported only by anecdotal evidence, traditional lore, and teachings in master/student lineages. [6] Research examining health benefits of qigong is increasing, but there is little financial incentive to support research and still only a limited number of studies meet accepted medical and scientific standards of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In a 2010 comprehensive review of qigong and tai chi, [7] a literature search of peer-reviewed journals in medical databases for the period of 1993-2007 found a total of seventy-seven RCT studies that examined the benefits of qigong and Tai chi practice. The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:
While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise. The authors called for further studies with standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). They concluded that qigong and tai chi have similar beneficial effects and have advantages of low cost, low risk, and high accessibility.
Vitalforce ( talk) 04:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi
by Roger Jahnke, Linda Larkey, Carol Rogers, Jennifer Etnier, and Fang Lin
Abstract
Objective: Research examining psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi is growing rapidly. The many practices described as Qigong or Tai Chi have similar theoretical roots, proposed mechanisms of action and expected benefits. Research trials and reviews, however, treat them as separate targets of examination. This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both.
Data Sources: The key words tai chi, taiji, and qigong were entered into electronic search engines for the Cumulative Index for Allied Health and Nursing (CINAHL), Psychological Literature (PsychInfo), PubMed, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar.
Study Inclusion Criteria: RCTs reporting on the results of Qigong or Tai Chi interventions and published in peer reviewed journals published from 1993–2007
Data Extraction: Country, type and duration of activity, number/type of subjects, control conditions, and reported outcomes were recorded for each study.
Synthesis: Outcomes related to Qigong and Tai Chi practice were identified and evaluated.
Results: Seventy-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The 9 outcome category groupings that emerged were: bone density (n=4), cardiopulmonary effects (n=19), physical function (n=16), falls and related risk factors (n=23), Quality of Life (n=17), self-efficacy (n=8), patient reported outcomes (n=13), psychological symptoms (n=27), and immune function (n=6).
Conclusions: Research has demonstrated consistent, significant results for a number of health benefits in RCTs, evidencing progress toward recognizing the similarity and equivalence of Qigong and Tai Chi.
Vitalforce ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on the review, not personal opinion of me or you or any other editor, the original language should be retained. Note your undoing my change would be interpreted as an inappropriate start of an editing war. Note the further clarification with qualification concerning exercise. Many of the studies were blunt tools in terms of distinguishing qigong and exercise. Vitalforce ( talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is why the following was included: "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." Your edit changes the emphasis and misrepresents the findings of the review, apparently to support your own position. Vitalforce ( talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the quality of the qigong article, and in other articles relating to health and medicine. As you point out, mention of similar results is "in the 4th paragraph of the Discussion" (not even mentioned in the abstract, and not the main emphasis of the review, since this was not a rigorous analysis of comparison with ordinary exercise. There are many other Discussion points that may better be emphasized. Is your concern addressed by the following language? "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." This appears adequate. I am glad to see you working directly with the reference. Vitalforce ( talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Vitalforce ( talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we reach consensus and proceed? Are there any concerns or discussion about the proposed edits? If not, I will proceed as proposed. Vitalforce ( talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am curious why you want to highlight exercise when this is not the emphasis in the review's abstract or conclusion. Would you please meet on middle ground that retains the original statement of the main finding of the review, and place language about exercise in the paragraph after the list of benefits, where it can be properly contextualized? The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:" is one of two main conclusions of the review and follows the "important Wikipedia" principle "to remain encyclopedic". Yes, it is fine afterwards to elaborate that based on a smaller subset of studies qigong/tai chi showed similar positive benefits with other exercise (and with education and acupuncture). The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a similar positive role to ordinary physical exercise in each of nine categories:" is neither one of the main conclusions, nor it it strictly true in that exercise (and education and acupuncture treatments) did not display all the nine categories. Let's craft this so it is factually correct and represents the conclusions of the review. Also, let's craft an explanation that the review (and the studies it reviews) recognize that qigong combines movement, controlled breath, focused attention, and meditation (not the same as other exercise). Vitalforce ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I see the Mayo Clinic study is not included in this article. this is essential: http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160
I came across this as well if someone wants to google for the research studies: http://yanxinqigong.net/research/index.htm Shape55 ( talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the medical research section with systematic reviews. I should note that the Jahnke review that is being discussed above is a lower type of evidence (a literature review) and there I trimmed it for WP:WEIGHT purposes (I would also not object to its removal; a study that does not assess the underlying quality of data is not really worth mentioning here, I think). Yobol ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the statement "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials." in the summary section is a scientific one. But it is just one of the points for "The main arguments from the view of skeptics against the correlation between qigong practices and health-related results are:". It should be grouped under the same section. So1308 ( talk) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I would like to start a more directed discussion on the medical evidence and support for Qigong in the talk pages before making changes. I've been talking with several people and some suggested the following change, which I think we should implement.
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. [8]
New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice are widespread and include improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. [5] [9] [10] While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice [7], an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research” [8]
Would this change be acceptable to everyone? If not, what specifically is the problem with it, and how can we come to consensus on a more unbiased and balanced view of the Qigong research which, though not yet definitive, is highly supportive and provides some evidence.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. CJ ( talk) 16:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
On another note, we might want to consider the following:
I do believe that we might find something useful in Peter Wayne's recent book - Harvard Medical school Guide to Tai chi.
I agree CJ. I consider statements from Harvard Medical School researchers to have high credibility. Kleinpj ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Conventional medical science on the Chinese art of Tai Chi now shows what Tai Chi masters have known for centuries: regular practice leads to more vigor and flexibility, better balance and mobility, and a sense of well-being. Cutting-edge research from Harvard Medical School also supports the long-standing claims that Tai Chi also has a beneficial impact on the health of the heart, bones, nerves and muscles, immune system, and the mind. This research provides fascinating insight into the underlying physiological mechanisms that explain how Tai Chi actually works. [11] However, nomenclature is a problem. We accept that qigong is a group of modalities: quiet meditation, moving meditation, self massage, external applications including a number of additional modalities such as cupping, tapping, 'sword finger' , even diet and herbal remedies. The vast majority of recent research is limited to moving meditation using tai chi postures. We can assume the premise that tai chi forms can cultivate qi and use the current research to our advantage to promote qigong with the caveat that this is a very limited inquiry.
Again - I'd like to hear your thoughts. CJ ( talk) 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that I'm afraid that you haven't kept up on the research. Look at WebMD, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Medical School, Vanderbilt Medical School - I could go on and on. It's almost as if you close your eyes and say "it's not there, I can't see it". The overwhelming majority of hospitals and medical communities have come, within the last five years, to the determination that Qigong & Tai Chi is safe, effective, and has positive benefits as an integrative medical practice. The evidence is growing, and clear, but needs more clinical trials to be definitive. That's what just about every synthesis and meta-analysis about the topic has said for the past five years. Your comment that we do not have sufficient data appears to me to be disengenuous because even when people show you the data, you are unwilling to look at it. Additionally, you say there is no bar to testing the hypothesis that Qigong and Tai Chi are safe and effective, but the fact is that there is a huge bar to testing that hypothesis. Unlike pharmaceutical and medical device companies who can afford to fund clinical trials because they get a return on their investment, there is no money to be made on Qigong. Add the fact that it is very difficult (though not impossible, as I explain in my peer-reviewed article published in a medical journal) to do a double blind clinical study on a behavioral therapy, then you have quite adequate reason to understand why we don't have solid proof of the efficacy of Qigong --- yet. I just want the Qigong article to be unbiased and more accurately reflect the current status of research, which is positive but not definitive due to the difficulties involved in clinical trials and the poor quality of research available so far. That's not wishful thinking. That's not putting a positive spin on something. The growing body of evidence is simply a statement of fact. Based on many references and sources acceptable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Let's look again at the text I am proposing (actually, I'm going to change it a bit to match more closely the sources): Old text:
A bald statement that evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive without any context as to why, and a poor quality of the clinical trials without any explanation or mention of positive trends in non-clinical research. New text:
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice
[7], an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”
[8]The same information, but within the context of where the researchers currently are. An indication that there may be positive benefits according to limited data, but more data is needed to draw firm conclusions. In my opinion, the second is the more unbiased statement, where as the first is a biased portrayal of the information because it is partial and incomplete. Since I thought impartial and unbiased was what we were trying for, it would make sense that the second statement would be more acceptable to the Wikipedia community as a whole. You appear to disagree, but I'm hoping for other people to be willing to consider the matter. I believe that it would be unfair for the article to be written solely based upon the opinion of someone who might not be as up to date in the research on this topic as I am. CJ ( talk) 00:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, again. Jytdog. So now, despite the fact that well-respected medical centers such as Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt University, Tufts Medical school - despite the fact that they are all provide Integrative healthcare (NOT alternative medicine, which is not integrated into the whole medical care model, but integrative medicine, which is providing generally safe and effective mind-body therapies in treating the whole person, not just the disease) despite the fact that they support these therapies, you still cling to the notion that there is no widespread agreement in the medical community that there is value to these health practices? The current text seems to me to be stating only part of the truth, not the whole truth. Without the context, it seems just a bit misleading. Don't we want the beginning paragraphs to reflect as unbiased and accurate information as can make it?
Perhaps we could compromise on something in between. Why don't you give it a try, and draft a statement that is not as minimalist as the current text, but not as fully developed as my proposed text?
CJ (
talk)
02:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
JytogFrom your statements above, it appears you are prejudiced against "alt. med." and that you are not recognizing the NIH, Mayo Clinic, or Harvard Medical School as being reputable sources. Your rigidity to stick with past research, distrust of "alternative/integrative" methods, and persistence to repeat old material is questionable. If the more current sources that the Professor, CJ, and others offer you are not proof enough that we need to move forward on this, I would respectfully ask you to reflect on how you are helping in this project,or is the intention to continually throw up roadblocks of archaic sources to keep us stuck in the past as well?
NatHealth1 (
talk)
21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Thank you for your response and it is not that Wikipedia policies are at issue, it is that a number of people have already supplied sources/studies for you to peruse and yet the changes CJ suggest are continually rebuffed. The Professor also gave credible sources in support of the benefits of Qigong, and CJ changed the wording and diluted its strength. You were invited to help with the wording, to collaborate, and you appear to ignore any new studies presented. Others are chiming in, with support of the changes. Please review all the data given above as it appears it is not being examined, but dismissed. Appreciate your willingness to work together as a team so that we can move ahead. NatHealth1 ( talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to the heart of the matter. If this is the case, I again ask why are we not including Jahnke's meta-analysis or the Harvard Medical School's findings? NatHealth1 ( talk) 13:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Twice now my addition has been reverted, and I would like to discuss it before filing a dispute. I feel that erasing my additional quote is allowing an incorrect and biased quote taken out of context to remain, while erasing my quote from the same article. When Yobol undid one of my edits because I "cherry picked" a quote from a journal article that contradicted the conclusion. However, I read the entire article, not just the abstract summary, and in my opinion the other quote was the one that was "cherry picked". Rather than erase the misleading quote, I added another quote from the conclusion of the article that more fairly represented the overall views of the investigators. With both quotes, I felt there was a much more balanced representation of the conclusion of the article. Please undo you revert and allow the more accurate portrayal of the article to stand. CJ ( talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/health-benefits-tai-chi-qigong
http://www.amazon.com/The-Harvard-Medical-School-Guide/dp/1590309421
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15006825?dopt=Abstract
http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/inside-integrative-medicine/issues/dec-2012.pdf
I could give you dozens more. Everyone says the same thing - positive results, growing evidence, not enough clinical studies, nothing definitive. Shouldn't Wikipedia's article say the same thing?
CJ ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:JytdogI hear what you are saying about reliable sources and I also see a pattern of refuting any change whatsoever. CJ provided links for you to peruse as well as outlining and explaining at length her suggested changes. Was any of this material read or was an immediate rebuttal instituted without any regard for what was offered? Again, I don't believe this is a balanced discussion and any attempt to broaden the definition is ignored. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Let's cooperate and meet half way. If the research is not enough to convince "you," then let's reference these studies and infer that there are strong indicators of health benefits. Surely, there is a way to word this that would meet both yours and CJs standards. NatHealth1 ( talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with CJ. The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi. It is recommended by many respected and evidence-based medical resources - Harvard, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic. I support CJ's changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.31.167 ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental focus on guiding qi through the body 調心. It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental intent on guiding qi through the body 調心 and possibly external to it.
The word focus is static, while the word intent is active. Most all literature about using Qigong techniques requires intent rather than focus to guide qi. Also, qi can be moved outside the body when it is directed to do so. There are many masters who refer to the existence of a Qi ball that can surround the body to provide both awareness and protection. There is also the whole topic of Qi healing that utilizes the qi from one person to affect the body of a patient. ( SequimTao ( talk) 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC))
/* Health Benefit */ It seems to me that one premise of this continuing discussion is based on an 'all or nothing' belief. Fact: there is a growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic benefit of qigong exercise. I support the proposed change as a more accurate representation of the 2014 state of research evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinpj ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The conversation in other areas is getting a bit dense, so I'd like to bring it all together again in this new area.
The question: which of these provide a more unbiased, more accurate, impartial reflection of the current state of research for Qigong and other Integrative (not alternative, not complimentary, but integrative) health practices?
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, lowering blood pressure and decreasing pain. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
(I've taken out the references at this point - but each sentence has been appropriately referenced with an acceptable reference based upon Wikipedia guidelines.)
Some editors have proposed that we should not make changes because the current statement is as far as Wikipedians should go; "almost all studies showed positive benefits" is not definitive, whereas "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" is definitive. Both are true - that fact does not appear to be in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it is more or less biased to make any comments at all that describe positive benefits until and unless we can make definitive statements about the topic.
There appears to some editors who think the second is more accurate and fair. The second way of indicating the effectiveness (poor quality research, as opposed to inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials which seems to suggest that the RESULTS of the trials was poor rather than that the positive effects cannot necessarily be generalized because it is based on poorly designed studies) seems to be more impartial and unbiased.
How do we resolve this disagreement? Comments? CJ ( talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is my suggested compromise : "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. In most cases, evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice. However, in another overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”. It is more verbose but it added information from both sides. ottawakungfu ( talk) 21:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ottawakungfu. My understanding of Neutral Point of View is just that - nuetral. Not negative. Not positive. Just the facts, Ma'am. Am I wrong? It appears to me the the current wording is negative, not neutral. The wording that Ottawakungfu has suggested is more neutral (though I would say "due to the low quality of the design of the research". Few of them would qualify as "clinical trials".) The current wording makes it sound as if there have been lots of clinical trials, but they have not shown any quality conclusions. The fact is there have been only a few clinical trials. Some have shown strong high quality conclusions, but there have not been ENOUGH of them to say that their conclusions are definitive.
I have also read the MEDRS at length, and as far as I can tell, the statements that we are trying to make are completely within those guidelines. We have sources and more sources which fit into the MEDRS definition of reliable source. Published in fully qualified peer reviewed medical journals. These studies report positive benefits, more reliable than anectodal evidence and case studies, but limited in their generalizability because of the difficulties in establishing double blind protocols with behavioral therapies. That does not mean that they are not valid, nor that they cannot draw any conclusions. What it means is that the conclusions they draw is limited to the specific environment, with the specific population, with a limited scope.
Allow me to give a specific example. New England Journal of Medicine. (N Engl J Med 2010;363:743-54.) A Randomized Trial of Tai Chi for Fibromyalgia by Chenchen Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Christopher H. Schmid, Ph.D., Ramel Rones, B.S., Robert Kalish, M.D., Janeth Yinh, M.D., Don L. Goldenberg, M.D., Yoojin Lee, M.S., and Timothy McAlindon, M.D., M.P.H.. Of the 66 randomly assigned patients, the 33 in the tai chi group had clinically important improvements in the FIQ total score and quality of life. Mean (±SD)baseline and 12-week FIQ scores for the tai chi group were 62.9±15.5 and 35.1±18.8,respectively, versus 68.0±11 and 58.6±17.6, respectively, for the control group (change from baseline in the tai chi group vs. change from baseline in the control group,−18.4 points; P<0.001). The corresponding SF-36 physical-component scores were 28.5±8.4 and 37.0±10.5 for the tai chi/qigong group versus 28.0±7.8 and 29.4±7.4 for the control group (between-group difference, 7.1 points; P = 0.001), and the mental component scores were 42.6±12.2 and 50.3±10.2 for the tai chi group versus 37.8±10.5 and 39.4±11.9 for the control group (between-group difference, 6.1 points; P = 0.03). Improvements were maintained at 24 weeks (between-group difference in the FIQ score, −18.3 points; P<0.001). No adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Tai chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment for fibromyalgia and merits long-term study in larger study populations
Another example. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. Investigators: Maria B. Ospina, B.Sc., M.Sc.; Kenneth Bond, B.Ed., M.A.; Mohammad Karkhaneh, M.D.;Lisa Tjosvold, B.A., M.L.I.S.;Ben Vandermeer, M.Sc.;Yuanyuan Liang, Ph.D.; Liza Bialy, B.Sc.; Nicola Hooton, B.Sc., M.P.H.; Nina Buscemi, Ph.D.; Donna M. Dryden, Ph.D. Terry P. Klassen, M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.C. Research conducted by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0023). The report is filled with descriptions of the poor methodologies used by research and non-significant results for the 813 studies included in the meta-analysis, but they specifically pointed out one particular positive outcome: A few statistically significant results favoring meditation practices were found: both TM® (transcendental meditation) versus PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), and Qi Gong versus WL (waiting list) for DBP (diastolic blood pressure) and SBP (systolic blood pressure), Zen Buddhist meditation versus blood pressure checks for DBP, and Yoga versus HE (health education) to reduce stress. The positive results from these meta-analyses need to be interpreted with caution, as biases, such as expectancy bias, cannot be excluded.
Note that they said "interpreted with caution", not "there was no positive results".
When a study has a positive outcome, a conclusion can be drawn. But one or two studies is not enough to definitively say that Tai Chi/Qigong IS useful in a wide variety of circumstances, just that it MAY BE useful. Does this mean that we should report (1) "there is no evidence that Tai Chi/Qigong is helpful"? Does this mean that we should report (2) "Tai Chi/Qigong is an effective treatment"? I don't think either one of those statements fits in the NPOV or MEDRS as I understand them. I believe that the proper thing to do would be to report (3) "A positive outcome was reported, and Tai Chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment, but the topic merits long term study in larger study populations." Wouldn't anything else is a misrepresentation? What am I missing about NPOV or MEDRS which would warrant the first statement rather than the third? I'm not trying to be difficult. I truly want to understand what I am missing. CJ ( talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
CJ ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. OR Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that many of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, but in most cases, strong evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the inadequate design of the existing research. A systematic review concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
I look forward to hearing from you and anyone else who wishes to share their opinion. If we can't come to some kind of agreement on this, then perhaps it is time to ask some other editors. Isn't there a request for comments process we can use to help us work through this impasse? CJ ( talk) 13:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
ob·serve [uhb-zurv] Show IPA verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing. 1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street. 2. to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question. 3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse. 4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be. 5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet. NatHealth1 ( talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I don't get your shorthand. Are you saying you don't find the Jahnke study helpful nor interesting- (if so be specific on what is not helpful and "interesting" is subjective and has no place here) or do you not get the definition of "observe," because you stated you have a problem with its use in this context? You have stated a concern with its use, yet you won't acknowledge a dictionary's definition. Have you read Jahnke's study- yes or no? NatHealth1 ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The effectiveness of qigong has been studied in various indications including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, and pain control. A 2011 review of randomized controlled trials (that did not evaluate the quality of the RCTs) found that qigong practice has some benefits(cite Jahnke), but an overview of systematic reviews published later in 2011 found that some published reviews were themselves of poor quality, that any claim for “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.(cite Lee)
Jahnke should not be used in the lead, and certainly not as discussed above. It does not do any due diligence about the quality of studies it reviews, which goes against the basics of how a systematic review should be run (see, for example, the PRISMA criteria); higher quality studies (read: more reliable sources) say that no conclusion can be reached due to the poor quality of the trials done. We have multiple higher quality reviews than Jahnke, there is no reason to use it in the lead, and certainly not as some counterweight to higher quality sources. I see numerous editors above objecting to changes to the subvert the now neutral sentence in the lead, and no consensus to change it. Yobol ( talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Jytdog,et al and find that CJ and the Professor have provided enough detailed explanations of their suggested revisions to warrant a more positive opening paragraph. Those whom disagree, I respectfully ask why you chose Qigong as your platform to edit on Wikipedia. What is your goal, intent for this listing, and why Qigong? It may help us understand, so that we can better collaborate and update this. Please advise. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
JytdogI invite you to tone down your assumptions on whom you are jousting with as these comments are not adding to our discussion, but distracting. I don't need to defend CJ, as "they" can do that themselves, and I am very familiar with medical literature and the use of "indications" in this sentence is clumsy. Again, very interested on why you and your coterie are interested in Qigong on Wikipedia. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog I hear you and agree with "as a complement." I don't believe anyone here has been implying otherwise. NatHealth1 ( talk) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's try for consensus on something clean that strictly uses the systematic reviews and overview of systematic reviews as sources. Draft text:
Note that every condition listed corresponds to a referenced systematic review, and three recently published reviews need to be added: Lauche et al. 2013 concerning fibromyalgia, Wang et al. 2013 concerning anxiety, depression, and well-being, and Oh et al. 2013 concerning depression. All reviews address RCTs that report positive effects, and all report that primary data are of poor quality, typically because of small sample sizes and lack of proper control group. Also note, all systematic reviews (except the two on hypertension) are considered to be of poor quality based on the 2011 overview of systematic reviews, and of course systematic reviews since 2011 were not evaluated. The conclusion quotes come from this overview, and are representative of the conclusions of all the reviews. TheProfessor ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add that while the Professor was writing that, I was working on a different one, so allow me to add it in case it would be more acceptable to everyone:
It is more wordy, but specific enough to balance both sides of the issue and is not negatively biased as the original wording. If we don't want to include all that, I'm happy to go back to a general statement that many studies show some positive benefits without citation and put the details in the more detailed section, but Jytdog, Yobol, and Roxy the Dog may require the more specific statements that can be sourced from strongly supported NIH and PubMed articles. Alternatively, we can simply take out the negatively biased statement with a vague - "More information on the research-based evidence can be found in the Qigong Health Research section."
Well? What do we think? Can we agree on this? If not, please provide ALTERNATIVE wording, don't just criticize the change. I believe we need to compromise on this issue, and I am sure that we can find a way to do that. CJ ( talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
{moved by CJ from next section because the issue was actually here, in the previous section} The comment was struck out earlier. It was so confusing I really didn't know who said what, which is why I started the next section. CJ ( talk) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the organized opinion gathering straw poll to another section below in an attempt to focus solely on the question at hand. I would remind everyone not to WP:GAME, or interpret the guidelines for medical sources too narrowly on order to fit with your own opinions of the topic. Wikipedia:MEDRS are the guidelines, and if they say sources such as PubMed, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and others are verifiable and acceptable, it is not appropriate to add additional layers of requirement. It is not proper to suppress valid and valuable information because you are personally opposed to it. My understanding is that one should ADD information to provide balance in an article, not delete. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and no one has the right to treat Wikipedia articles as their personal property, squelshing additions based on capricious and specious arguements that go far beyond the intention of the guidelines for medical sources.
I would also ask that everyone refrain from personal attacks, bullying behavior, attempts to intimidate, or unfounded accusations against particular people because you don't agree with them. If you wish to make your opinion known in the straw poll, please look to the new section I have created for ONLY opinions on the text choices. Continue your discussions, if necessary, in this section. Thank you. CJ ( talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that you or anyone else did these things. I'm simply asking everyone to refrain from doing them. CJ ( talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please provide your opinion:
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
Developmentalist:No, NIH Suggests there is strong evidence for certain benefits Developmentalist ( talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)
Developmentalist: No, I think it should state that there is strong evidence for certain conditions see NIH's page on Qigong. Developmentalist ( talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
Developmentalist: No, many quality trials have shown positive results. Janhke et. al's review included 66 RCT's.
Developmentalist (
talk)
02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".
Developmentalist:Yes
Please add alternative wording suggestions here:
New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".
Developmentalist:Yes, If we could include "NIH has suggested that there is strong evidence that Qigong (and Taiji) can have positive effects for bone health, cardiopulmonary fitness, balance, and quality of life" Developmentalist ( talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above, only below. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that.
CJ (
talk)
15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Further Discussion Below
As this thread is moot in any case, I suggest it be closed and hatted, discussion should perhaps be aimed at Jytdog's idea, that CJ work on a way to get her medical theories into the body of the article, without the unevidenced claims that she (understandably) wants to make. You must remember that according to WP:MOS the lede should as far as possible be a precis of the body text of the article. To repeat myself, I can't see how you can go further than "Exercise is good for you." Sorry, I am. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
(moved from top of section so that section organization is maintained. This was originally at the top.) CJ ( talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC) There so many conflicts in the last section that I am confused. Jytdog, for example, asked me for sources for qigong impact on anxiety when that was someone else's suggestion, not mine. Can we agree to refrain from criticisms and justifications and simply, one right after another, post alternative wording so that people can comment on which one(s) they would support? I think we've all heard all the arguments many times, and I'd like to bring this impasse to a close or ask for dispute resolution.
Developmentalist You can find an NIH research spotlight here http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/071910.htm Also, NIH has produced videos on Taiji and Qigong which it maintains are safe and effective for promoting health and wellness. The director of NCCAM introduces the videos found at this link http://nccam.nih.gov/video/taichiDVD If there were not some consensus that Taiji and Qigong were beneficial, NIH would not be promoting them and teaching people how to do it. Of the many researchers and clinicians that I know working in this area, consensus is that there is strong evidence for certain benefits, mentioned in the report above, and emerging evidence in other areas where more research is needed. Developmentalist ( talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to pick up the thread concerning wordsmithing a consensus lead. A few details: First, I proposed changing the phrase Medical research on qigong is increasing" to scientific interest in qigong is growing", to try to satisfy Jytdog's concerns, and based on the Lee et al. 2011 Overview of Systematic Reviews, which states "All of the systematic reviews have been published recently which indicates that the scientific interest in qigong is growing", meant to be faithful to the source, not promotional. I suggest another try with wording like "A growing body of medical research focuses on qigong, including clinical trials concerning...". The list corresponds to conditions covered by systematic reviews, such that one or more reviews can readily be cited for each condition. I would not favor having no specifics of what was studied like the current "various medical conditions". I prefer the more informative version (New Text#3 above, with these tweaks), I'm willing to compromise to New Text#4 above for now, and revisit depending on any rewrites to the medical section. TheProfessor ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not a big tagger, but I want to point out that as I have discussed with User:Cjrhoads on her talk page, I believe she has a clear COI here. I also pointed out to User:NatHealth1 that the account fits the definition of WP:SPA. Jytdog ( talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog I'm interested in knowing, since you have years of experience here,if Wikipedia pays or hires individuals to edit pages. NatHealth1 ( talk) 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
the atmosphere that is created from your response to a different opinion than yours, sets the tone. If I appeared to be brazen, it was necessitated by the environment already long established by the coterie. May we now establish a neutral tone and I invite you to lead me to the appropriate wiki section to continue a civilized discourse on proper wiki etiquette. I will follow your example with hopes of rectitude in leadership and an open mind. When we differ, I hope each of us will respectfully consider the other's suggestion before dismissing it entirely. NatHealth1 ( talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I appeal to everybody's humanity to do right by each other. Yes, let's ensure there is no COI or SPA (my impression is that not the real problem here); let's give the newbies a real chance to do some editing with some proper mentoring and encouragement; let's keep the discussion on track; and let's set a truly civil and respectful tone. For everybody's sake let's clean up the discussion - move mentoring and side discussion to userpages or other appropriate threads, etc. I appreciate CJ's enthusiasm and sincerity, and I encourage slowing down, listening, learning, and getting good experience editing before diving so far into controversy. I'm exhausted by the pace and continued tense/challenging atmosphere, and would like to do my part to create a collaborative (and frankly more fun and creative) atmosphere. I have learned a lot, and commit to do my best to keep my part of the discussion concise, cogent, and supportive. TheProfessor ( talk) 10:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
( Jytdog Can I please strike this out again?) Or could you please clean it up so that it is clearer that this is not longer the active straw poll? Thank you CJ ( talk) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)
New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".
Please add alternative wording suggestions here:
New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".
Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above. Discussion in other sections only, please. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that. CJ ( talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC) (Moved to new section by CJ ( talk) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC))
:Would you please clarify where in the article you intend this proposed content to go? Yobol has indicated above that he will not support a laundry list in the lead. I actually thought we were working on a lead for the Health section. I cannot "vote" on this unless I know where it will go.
Jytdog (
talk)
13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
NatHealth1 ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Ottawakungfu can you please explain why you want to replace "clinical research" with "research"? thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
user:Developmentalist in your note you want to include reference to Tai Chi. My sense is that we do not want to add content about Tai Chi to this article, as right now there is a separate Tai chi article and it seems unwise to start blending them; I don't want to get into a qigong vs tai chi battle; this is already complicated enough. Is that OK? Jytdog ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Cjrhoads, With respect to moving or changing other users' comments, there is a very limited repertoire of what is allowed - please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Please note that it says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have objected, as has Roxy, saying "please." In this evening's refactoring, done over my objections and Roxy's, you also left comments of mine that I have struck, unstruck. If you edit any of my comments again, in any way, I will bring you to ANI and you will not have a leg to stand on. I do not like drama boards but this is a bright line - stop messing with my comments. Jytdog ( talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's another option. Since Mayo Clinic was mentioned favorably, if what TheProfessor is suggesting is not acceptable, then here's another option
According to the Mayo Clinic, meditation activities such as Qigong might be useful for medical conditions, especially those that may be worsened by stress. They note that while a growing body of scientific research supports the health benefits, some researchers believe it's not yet possible to draw conclusions about the possible benefits of meditation. With that in mind, they suggest that Qigong and other forms of meditation may help such conditions as Allergies, Anxiety disorders, Asthma, Binge eating, Cancer, Depression, Fatigue, Heart disease, High blood pressure, Pain, Sleep problems, and Substance abuse.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/meditation/art-20045858
What would everyone think about that one? CJ ( talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Since MEDRS says Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, Mayo Clinic, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources in themselves, and can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly, I thought it would be good for just an introductory area. Certainly, we could reference the other literature in a more detailed section. You had mentioned in an earlier discussion that no one had referenced Mayo Clinic, and I got the impression that you thought that would be a good source. Obviously I was wrong. Again, I would ask that you make a proposal for the text under discussion; I'm sure you can come up with something that would be good, but still acceptable in my opinion. Please try. Thanks CJ ( talk) 14:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
yeyoung_qigong_origin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Cohen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jahnke_et_al_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Review
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Frantzis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YJM1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wayne
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page 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. |
I'm very skeptical of qigong, and trying to find any trials that could disprove effectiveness of qigong I stumbled on the the following page referencing and citing over 20 publications that claim effectiveness of qigong. Publications of research Though the content of the website itself can be biased, there are definite references. So a further review of these studies/publications is needed to determine their credibility.
I also found a skepticism article here: Sima Nan: Fighting Qigong Pseudoscience in China, which however quotes almost no research, but features a view of a skeptic who's been involved in qiqong community.
The following webpage gives a thorough analysis of current scientific evidence, references corresponding studies, but also notes that most studies suffer from small sample size, are not double-blinded etc. Scientific Evidence for Qigong and Conditions where it seem to be effective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.127.206 ( talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Article has been rewritten with enough external references to address the issue of skeptics. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about qigong or reiki, but they sound very similar. I would like to see each article mention the other and briefly compare the two. Bhami ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to add that there IS more to these things than meets the eye. To my own surprise, as someone who always used to discount such things, I have self-realised Reiki after the fashion of the original methods taught by Usui back in the 1920s. This is a wider set of practices, including diagnostic techniques, than the current western style, which by comparison is watered-down 'just send it in' approach. I'm amazed at what is possible, but what will be will be. Google 'steve the healer' for info on me. I stand by what I do. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.147.215.5 (
talk)
01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing about what the movements or breathing are. The pictures show what look like tai chi moves, and the only description of the breathing is "the inverse breath of inhaling to the back of the thoracic cavity rather than diaphragmatic breathing", which means nothing to the layman. (What's an inverse breath? What's the thoractic cavity?) A simple description or example is needed, and also how qigong is different from tai chi and yoga. (The talk archive says a bit about tai chi in the "Types of Chi-Gong" section.) Sluggoster ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an acupuncturist and certified Qigong instructor. I unfortunately don't have time to rewrite this article for at least 6 months, but I need to point out some important inaccuracies. The section titled "the Rise of Qigong" is completely wrong regarding the origins of Qigong. The primary work cited is a book on a single, fairly new form of Qigong (Falun Gong). But Qigong predates Chinese medicine, kung fu, tai chi, and all other systematized arts based on Qi. Qigong is, in essence, more "raw" than these other arts -- it is essentially the practice of perceiving, cultivating, and manipulating Qi for spiritual, martial, or health purposes. According to Daniel Reid, in "Harnessing the Power of the Universe: A Complete Guide to the Principles and Practice of Chi-Gung," the earliest forms of Qigong are probably about 10,000 years old, and were the domain of tribal shamans. (Qigong of this era took a form similar to dance.)
Regarding the sections discussing the PRC government's role in the process of promoting and organizing Qigong, this needs to be put into proper context. Much of the history of Qigong has been fairly secretive, with master-disciple lineages similar to the kung fu tradition. Until recently, the government had no particular role in Qigong aside from threatening its practitioners. Even now, it seems the government's involvement is a concession to Qigong's great number of adherents, with the clear ulterior motive of suppressing mass organization. However, there is probably some earnest interest in proving its merit as a health supporting practice.
In the Uses paragraph, it is misleading to say Qigong employs a particular style of breathing, or even that "Taoist qigong employs..." As with kung fu, there are innumerable styles of Qigong, and certainly no unified theory or practice. As for making any claims of "Taoist Qigong," most Qigong masters probably consider themselves Daoists (more or less), and many would say their Qigong is based on Daoist principles. There is no single "Taoist Qigong."
I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but this article was written with a poor and incomplete survey of sources.
Anahata9 ( talk) 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You fail as an qigong instructor without knowing what really is qigong. As the original article said, qigong in its modern form with different schools and types only appeared in post-mao china. There might be mentions of "qi", "neigong", "neijin" in Traditional Chinese Martial arts but they are not "qigong" as you know it today.
Just because the concept of "qi" existed for a long doesn't mean that it's qi gong. If there aren't any accurate sources saying hw those earlier forms became the "qigong" you know today, then it isn't qigong. The concept of qi is not qi gong. It's like saying Judaism is a Abrahamitic Monotheistic religion, Islam is a Abrahamictic Monotheistic religion. Therefore, Islam existed the moment Judaism began and Islam is Judaism. That is just plain ignorance.
Have you even wondered why the term "qi gong", just like "wu shu" didn't even exist in Chinese texts in pre-communist china? "Wu shu" is a watered down,exhibition oriented sport derivated from chinese martial arts. Wushu is not kungfu. Just like how the concept of qi is not qigong. Go look at the history of Chinese Martial Arts, there are no sects, schools, clans or families practicing or teaching qigong. Don't get influenced by wuxia novels and by poorly researched books. Although Qi Gong can has its origins traced a long way back, Qi Gong in its form today only existed in the modern era. 60.52.103.141 ( talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I will help you understand what Qigong means.. Qi (also 'Chi', 'Ki') literally means 'Energy'-- Gong (also Kung [as in kung fu, etc.]) literally means 'Work', or a work-in 'Practice'.. It is the 'Art/practice' of 'working with energy'... This may help you understand 'origins of Qigong' -- there really is no 'origin' as describing the source of Qigong is like describing the source of languages, it is not something you can go "Oh yeah it was year XX B.C. when the book 'How to use Energy' was written". No.. it is not that simple. This wikipedia article is sincerely in need of a total Re-Haul! And please, skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed. Also..
"User talk:60.52.103.141 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)", you are completely wrong. You fail to understand that Qigong, as with ALL ancient-spiritual traditions, has evolved due to modernization of the planet - it has not 'emerged' as a 'new form of qigong' as you say! It is not just Qigong, it is EVERY ASPECT of our life too - specific political ideals, specific cultural taboos/acceptances, specific technologies, etc. it is only recently that there has been a 'globalization' of cultures and hence traditions..
If anyone, somebody like Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming should be writing the Qigong article! Or at least source his knowledge in this wikipedia article.. Wouldn't it be stupid to have first-day students teach the class instead of professors who have Ph.D's and/or years of relevant experience in the subject? Just so, it is STUPID to have these 'blatant close-minded' 'snippets' compose a wikipedia article. If you skeptics of qigong must, then treat the article as if it is make-believe, does it harm you to have the article written by Qigong masters and experienced practitioners? Or are mostly just disinformation agents? ( 71.222.36.171 ( talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Overhaul completed. The tone of the article is more neutral and should be more informative. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how much of Western confusion results from a very literal interpretation. To make an analogy, consider the Western concept of health.
Everyone knows that a person can have good health or be in poor health. We may even say that a person can be stricken or afflicted with bad health, or lost his health due to unhealthy activity. We have buildings that say "National Institutes of Health". Yet there is no physician who can dissect the health out of a cadaver (reasonably enough) or even a healthy person. No one can say how much health weighs or what color it is. Two doctors can look at a patient and disagree about whether he is healthy or not. By far most of the times we see the word printed on the side of a box of sugared cereal extract or a jug of fortified juice-flavored high fructose corn syrup it means nothing about whether a person will get sick or not. In fact lots of people talk about health but only a subset of them are actually helpful. I hope that people who are fluent with both cultures will consider whether something similar applies to qigong, or if it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than this. Wnt ( talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese medicine, like many other Chinese sciences, defines data on the basis of the inductive and synthetic mode of cognition. Inductivity corresponds to a logical link between two effective positions existing at the same time in different places in space. (Conversely, causality is the logical link between two effective positions given at different times at the same place in space.) In other words, effects based on on positions that are separate in space yet simultaneous in time are mutually inductive and thus are called inductive effects. In Western science prior to the development of electrodynamics and nuclear physics (which are founded essentially on inductivity), the inductive nexus was limited to subordinate uses in protosciences such as astrology. Now Western man, as a consequence of two thousand years of intellectual tradition, persists in the habit of making causal connections first and inductive links, if at all, only as an afterthought. This habit must still be considered the biggest obstacle to an adequate appreciation of Chinese science in general and Chinese medicine in particular. Given such different cognitive bases, many of the apparent similarities between traditional Chinese and European science which attract the attention of positivists turn out to be spurious.
Inductive logic is faulty compared to Causal logic because of the Base Rate Fallacy and other related cognitive biases. Because of this, choosing inductivity before causality is just plain irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 ( talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Such arguments are beyond the scope of this article. Facts should be presented in a neutral tone and it will up to the reader to make their own judgment.
ottawakungfu (
talk)
01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be of interest to read about people who have practiced qigong for some time. Here is a site where more than 100 people have related their stories with name and photo. The site also relates to research and projects observed by medical doctors with significant result.
ArneNordgren ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)ArneNordgren
Hello all. There are some views that qigong is pseudo scientific. Some of those come from pretty well meaning Chinese people and literature. But I do feel that this article should represent more about what is meaningfully symbolic to certain cultures concerning qigong. Phdarts ( talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously people, this article drives me sick. It is so biased it pains me to see it's wikipedia content. It manipulates content in a way of making more relevant arguments made by believes of supernatural stuff. This is an encyclopedia, and not a self-help book. Even the definition of the article doesn't have sources. This is a pretty controversial article, yes - write about it in an unbiased way, talking about different groups' opinions and views. Repetitive but necessary: this is an encyclopedia.
200.158.99.250 ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, I don't really care. But to assume that the subject is made-up, false, fake, nonsense etc. to begin with, is not encyclopedic. I'm saying it should be discussed on its own terms, and its meaning clarified in relation to the dominant paradigm, rather than cast the whole thing only in terms of the dominant paradign. I see this as quite a simple and straightforward idea, and one which doesn't require any ideological struggle. It doesn't seek to diminish materialist science, but merely say "This is how qigong understands xyz, this is its ontology. Science says it's all rubbish." Readers can take their pick. Anyway, no one is looking after this article to begin with, so our talk is fairly fruitless. Best wishes.-- Asdfg 12345 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make the Qigong article any more 'skeptical'. Because honestly I have researched Qigong for many years, and when I read the Wikipedia page on it just today, I couldn't help but flinch at the bias towards the skeptical side. But that's wikipedia for you, it's 'home for the skeptics' for sure. If some of you guys would actually do some open-minded research, and read a few books written by actual descendents of true Qigong practices/traditions (rather than 'American-ized' Qigong) you would realize that every human being 'practices qigong' on some scale day-to-day. To deny Chi or Qi exists, is to completely misunderstand what Chi or Qi is. I could go deeper into the subject of Qigong, but I will stop here. Peace. 71.222.44.231 ( talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In the re-write as of June, 2010, the neutral point of view is implemented. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The final sentence of the third paragraph of the first section reads "There is a great deal of verifiable evidence (6,000 years worth) of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" The citation at the end just leads to a footnote that says "Felix Mann", and links to the WP entry on him. However, that entry reads "Mann has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians.[4]" The citation listed there takes one to a footnote and an interview with Felix Mann, in which two passages from Mann's book "Reinventing Acupuncture" are quoted: "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" (p. 14) and "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians." Clearly, Mann does not provide "...verifiable evidence...of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", as the entry would have us believe; he argues against them. Consequently, I'm striking that sentence and its contradictory footnote. Once a supporter of qigong and "meridians" can provide something resembling "verifiable evidence", they may have another crack at it. Bricology ( talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In re-write, such points are not included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI. Ikip ( talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Structure and property changes in certain materials influenced by the external qi of qigong. Claims to have produced structural changes in inanimate objects via qi. Andre ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There are reports of this phenomenon but the problem is reproducibility under control conditions. Such information is included in the re-write with the appropriate reference. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Association of qigong with practices involving spirit possession have added to establishment criticism. Some experts in China[who?] have warned against practices involving the claimed evocation of demons,..."
The "who?" is for example the selfstyled Supermaster of Falun Gong, Li Hongshi, who hints meanwhile that he is an extraterrestrial. In his writing Zhuan Falun he warns explicitly against other forms of Qi Gong, since only his invention is the only true method. Foxspirits might jump out of other Qigong books (no kidding! That is what he writes.)
That might answer the "who?" if one is willing to call Li Hongshi an expert. I don't want to change anything in the article, because I'm not so confident of my English. JonValkenberg--
92.194.4.45 (
talk)
17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement has been reworked. No explicit personal viewpoints are included in the re-write. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A single page from a David Ownby text is cited 8 times in the History section, but the title of that text has either never appeared, or has been eaten up by edits. Can someone dig up this reference and properly cite its title and publication info? Steamroller Assault ( talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I can try. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ownby is now properly referenced ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
please start discussing why is it that that article should be added to section external links. see also Guo Lin, Guolin Qigong, Walking Qigong
In general, external link is not encouraged. In general, some reference to Guo Lin is included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to a radical clean-up of this article? I have David Palmer's Qigong Fever here, and while it isn't perfect, I think there is much useful content for structuring this article. I will begin adding information from it. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Information from David Palmer, David Ownby, Ian Johnson and Nancy Chen plus many others are now referenced. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, this article should be fair in its assessment of Qigong. If the author(s) took the liberty of inserting criticism and controversy issues into this article, why not insert also the accounts of famed, established Physicists and other Scientists and Physicians who are or have become qigong practitioners? Why give credit or mention to ludicrous claims of paranormal or supra-normal activities and prowess? Why mention charlatans at all? Do we have to remind everybody that Western Medicine has its own count of charlatans, even during the 20th Century? What about psychosis and other qigong-related illnesses, all the while forgetting that psychiatrists and oncologists have their hands full of people who reacted BADLY to conventional treatments and some even died? As I said, a heavily flawed and biased article. From what I have seen and heard from otherwise skeptical (and science oriented) persons, Reiki and Qigong WORK. Period. This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are. Please, improve it. MikeLousado ( talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
New article tries to maintain a neutral point of view. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
At some point in the article, this sentence comes up: "Also known as "qigong deviation" (氣功偏差) among psychiatrists, the condition could cause, in extremis, death through delusions of omnipotence." The sentence quoted above is intended as detrimental, but a simple investigation reveals how flawed it is. Qigong deviation is a Transliteration of mental disturbance caused by qigong practice. According to Chinese medical literature, the term for this is exactly zhuhuo rumo, which literally means "inner fire out of control" or "entering the realm of Mara". This is also a qigong term for patients suffering from mental illnesses.
If one digs deeper, it becomes obvious that this "deviation" is caused, according to Chinese qigong-literature, by misdirected use of Chi. Meaning, the justification for this criticism lies in the badly application of chi/prana. MikeLousado ( talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The article remains a neutral point of view. Both the advantage and disadvantage of qigong are included. ottawakungfu ( talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to restructure the entire article of qigong to make it more encyclopedic. Here are a summary and rationale for the changes we have made (this section will be updated periodically)
Revision completed. Please keep the article in a neutral point of view! ottawakungfu ( talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Just want to say THANK YOU for the fabulously improved article. The difference is like night and day. Much appreciated!! Anahata9 ( talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The problems with this article are not repairable. The trouble is in the concept and beliefs of those who advocate Qi Gong.
Quoted from the discussion thread above. "...This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are...." MikeLousado;
"...skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed...." author unclear.
Understand what those beliefs are. If you wave your arms and legs in unison with a small group of people you command powerful supernatural forces. It doesn't matter how you state it that is the belief of this system.
The concept is nonsense and borderline psychotic. But these people function normally except for these strange beliefs. They claim and do experience psychiatric symptoms they understand as Qi Gong working.
VisionAndPsychosis.Net explained why this happens in 2003. The meditating moving people form an engine for Subliminal Distraction exposure. There is no magic or Chee involved.
Subliminal Distraction, a normal feature in our physiology of sight, was discovered to cause mental breaks for office workers forty years ago. The cubicle was designed to deal with the phenomenon by 1968. This exposure will alter your ability to think and reason critically . That's why there are the claims of supernatural outcomes from performing this exercise.
Anyone with full mental capability would not make such claims. Long term users of Qi Gong have altered mental states so that they can believe this nonsense.
There is no way to resolve these two points at issue. One claims supernaturally acquired benefits and the other says the claimed benefits are nonexistent and an expected outcome from performing this at-risk activity.
An example of these outcomes can be see in the experience of 14 Ontario schools where students have bizarre symptoms after Wi-Fi was installed and they began to use laptop computers anywhere they wanted to sit rather than observe Cubicle Level Protection while using the computers. Students have headaches, dizziness, trouble sleeping, memory loss, and strange skin sensations. Symptoms disappear on weekends and school vacations. The experience shows the wide range of symptoms SD exposure can cause. When Qi Gong users begin to have symptoms they understand it is Qi Gong working.(The Cubicle solved this exposure problem when mental breaks appeared in business offices in the 1960's.)
There are examples of other outcomes from Subliminal Distraction exposure at VisionAndPsychosis.Net. I am the copyright holder for that site.
24.96.50.139 ( talk) 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)L K Tucker
REPLY on 6/21/2011 out of sequence with talk page history. Subliminal Distraction exposure can happen anywhere. The Landmark Education mental breaks show that classrooms can cause limited SD exposure. The people who perform Qi Gong alone have SD exposure at another place then associate the symptoms of SD exposure with Qi Gong because of their altered belief system that Qi Gong is effective. With Culture Bound Syndromes ethnic based mental events are understood and believed to be caused by something in the local culture. Ghost Sickness was believed to be caused by too close contact with the dead. Too-small single-room living arrangements of Native Americans allowed SD exposure. Examination of the Startle Matching Behaviors show the believed "cultural mental events" actually cross cultural and ethnic boundaries. They are only named locally because when a SD caused mental events happens it is experienced in terms of local culture. The belief in the efficacy of Qi Gong is an unrecognized mental disorder. L K Tucker 24.96.50.245 ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just have to say this article is hilarious. I've never seen such a credulous article on Wikipedia(!) that so fully incorporates the mystical and supernatural beliefs of a religion as the facts of its "science" and history.
Breathing and exercises are excellent stuff for overall wellness, but the quackery in this article is best described as evil. 174.99.110.64 ( talk) 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just overflew this, have to agree with everyone who thinks that this article isn't nearly neutral enough. This whole thing is slanted hideously in favour of qi gong and doesn't even bother concealing that. I'd fix it up myself, but since I know from experience that this kind of thing always ends up being resolved in favour of the "wiki-squatter" who thinks he owns the article, I'm not even going to bother. I just hope a moderator or someone else in charge sees this soon, this whole article is an enormous embarrassment for Wikipedia. -- 188.98.180.151 ( talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yiquan is not Qigong!
Raed description about Yiquan on Wikipedia:
"Yiquan is essentially formless, containing no fixed sets of fighting movements or techniques. Instead, focus is put on developing one's natural movement and fighting abilities through a system of training methods and concepts, working to improve the perception of one's body, its movement, and of force. Yiquan is also set apart from other eastern martial arts in that traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, the reason being that understanding one's true nature happens in the present, and that preconceptions block this process." Part of Yiquan caled ZhangZhuang viewed from the outside reminds Qigong, but traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, since 1938. The Link:
"Yiquan, a Chinese martial art derived from xingyiquan, is a strong proponent of stance training.[93] "
suggests something else.
LG Ch. Ratka — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKRatka ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Before the four official forms of "energy-work" or QiGong existed (as approved of by the government of China, there was Dao Yin, as internal martial arts was known. The Silk Scroll found at MaWangDui contains 44 forms of Dao Yin. I have studied "the Five Animal Frolics"; "the Eight Pieces of Brocade"; "the Six Healing Sounds"; and looked into "the Yijinjing". I find no resemblence between these and my poster of the MaWangDui DaoYin positions. The comment that they are similar leads many not to look for themselves. Many books are written that dwell on the way energy flows through the human body. "Manufactured History" is the Chinese way of describing the effect of getting lost in the commentary about a topic, or in mysticism related to a part of Chinese culture. One never hears a simple, "no" or a "just practice". One is gotten lost in "manufactured History". Some teachers deal with questions that are seen as disrespectful, doubting in their nature in this way. Tales of immortality are another form of "Manufactured History". America has a bit of it rubbing off from "experts" who write books that lose the point. Often a simple video or DVD will teach all one needs to know for the first three years of practice. After a foundation is built, then respectfully ask a question. Teachers need not "prove" a point. My point with this long winded paragraph is that a Western "Expert" has discouraged many from looking for themselves at a piece of archeology from 168 B.C. that cannot be doubted in favor of a modern source. Ward68 ( talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
One should know, that there not any actual evidence to support the claim that qigong can be a cause of psychosis, or any other mental disorder. That someone write a book about it, does not mean that the person deliver actual evidence. Observation followed by speculation is not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.218.140 ( talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this article with a few maintenance tags. I also intend - with a bit of help - to completely re-write it. This entire subject needs to be a approached from a reliable scientific perspective. The Cavalry ( Message me) 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Placed here to be accessible, but out of way of rewrite discussion.
Scientific Review
Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.
Some References to Consider
Adler, P. A., & Roberts, B. L. (2006). The use of tai chi to improve health in older adults. Orthopaedic Nursing, 25(2), 122-126.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2004). Physical activity and bone health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, January 23, 2008-1985; 1996.
Audette, J. F., Jin, Y. S., Newcomer, R., Stein, L., Duncan, G., & Frontera, W. R. (2006). Tai chi versus brisk walking in elderly women. Age & Ageing, 35(4), 388-93.
Baranowski, T., Perry, C. L., & Parcel, G. S. (2002). How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social cognitive theory. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. (3rd ed., pp. 8). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Barrow, D. E., Bedford, A., Ives, G., O'Toole, L., & Channer, K. S. (2007). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi chuan and chi kung training in patients with symptomatic heart failure: A randomised controlled pilot study. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83(985), 717-21.
Brismee, J., Paige, R. L., Chyu, M., Boatright, J. D., Hagar, J. M., McCaleb, J. A., et al. (2007). Group and home-based tai chi in elderly subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(2), 99-111.
Burini, D., Farabollini, B., Iacucci, S., Rimatori, C., Riccardi, G., Capecci, M., et al. (2006). A randomized controlled cross-over trial of aerobic training versus qigong in advanced parkinson's disease. Europa Medicophysica, 42(3), 231-8.
Chan, K., Qin, L., Lau, M., Woo, J., Au, S., Choy, W., et al. (2004). A randomized, prospective study of the effects of tai chi chun exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85(5), 717-22.
Channer, K. S., Barrow, D., Barrow, R., Osborne, M., & Ives, G. (1996). Changes in haemodynamic parameters following tai chi chuan and aerobic exercise in patients recovering from acute myocardial infarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 72(848), 349- 51.
Chen, H. H., Yeh, M. L., & Lee, F. Y. (2006). The effects of baduanjin qigong in the prevention of bone loss for middle-aged women. The Ameriacn Journal of Chinese Medicine, 34(5), 741-747.
Chen, K., & Yeung, R. (2002). A review of qigong therapy for cancer treatment. Journal of International Society of Life Information Science, 20(2), 532-542.
Cheng, T. (2006). Tai chi: The chinese ancient wisdom of an ideal exercise for cardiac patients. International Journal of Cardiology, 117, 293-295.
Cheung, B. M. Y., Lo, J. L. F., Fong, D. Y. T., Chan, M. Y., Wong, S. H. T., Wong, V. C. W., et al. (2005). Randomised controlled trial of qigong in the treatment of mild essential hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension, 19(9), 697-704.
Chodzko-Zajko, W., Jahnke, R. and Working Group. (2005). National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and Tai Chi: Consensus Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 14-16. (Larkey, L.K: Working/Writing Group member).
Choi, J. H., Moon, J., & Song, R. (2005). Effects of sun-style tai chi exercise on physical fitness and fall prevention in fall-prone older adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(2), 150-7.
Chou, K., Lee, P. W. H., Yu, E. C. S., Macfarlane, D., Cheng, Y., Chan, S. S. C., et al. (2004). Effect of tai chi on depressive symptoms amongst chinese older patients with depressive disorders: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19(11), 1105-7.
Elder, C., Ritenbaugh, C., Mist, S., Aickin, M., Schneider, J., Zwickey, H., et al. (2007). Randomized trial of two mind-body interventions for weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 13(1), 67-78.
Faber, M. J., Bosscher, R. J., Chin A Paw, M. J., & van Wieringen, P. C. (2006). Effects of exercise programs on falls and mobility in frail and pre-frail older adults: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87(7), 885-96.
Fransen, M., Nairn, L., Winstanley, J., Lam, P., & Edmonds, J. (2007). Physical activity for osteoarthritis management: A randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating hydrotherapy or tai chi classes. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 57(3), 407-14.
Freemont, A. J., & Hoyland, J. A. (2007). Morphology, mechanisms and pathology of musculoskeletal ageing, 211(2), 252-259.
Galantino, M. L., Shepard, K., Krafft, L., Laperriere, A., Ducette, J., Sorbello, A., et al. (2005). The effect of group aerobic exercise and t'ai chi on functional outcomes and quality of life for persons living with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 11(6), 1085-92.
Gatts, S. K., & Woollacott, M. H. (2006). Neural mechanisms underlying balance improvement with short term tai chi training. Aging-Clinical & Experimental Research, 18(1), 7-19.
Gemmell, C., & Leathem, J. M. (2006). A study investigating the effects of tai chi chuan: Individuals with traumatic brain injury compared to controls. Brain Injury, 20(2), 151-156.
Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., Kelley, M. E., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., et al. (2007). Tai chi and perceived health status in older adults who are transitionally frail: A randomized controlled trial. Physical Therapy, 87(5), 525-35.
Hammond, A., & Freeman, K. (2006). Community patient education and exercise for people with fibromyalgia: A parallel group randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(10), 835-46.
Hart, J., Kanner, H., Gilboa-Mayo, R., Haroeh-Peer, O., Rozenthul-Sorokin, N., & Eldar, R. (2004). Tai chi chuan practice in community-dwelling persons after stroke. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27(4), 303-4.
Hartman, C. A., Manos, T. M., Winter, C., Hartman, D. M., Li, B., & Smith, J. C. (2000). Effects of T'ai chi training on function and quality of life indicators in older adults with osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(12), 1553-9.
Hass, C. J., Gregor, R. J., Waddell, D. E., Oliver, A., Smith, D. W., Fleming, R. P., et al. (2004). The influence of tai chi training on the center of pressure trajectory during gait initiation in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(10), 1593-1598.
Hogan, M. (2005). Physical and cognitive activity and exercise for older adults: A review. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60(2), 95-126.
Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., & Oxman, M. N. (2007). Augmenting immune responses to varicella zoster virus in older adults: A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 511-7.
Irwin, M. R., Pike, J. L., Cole, J. C., & Oxman, M. N. (2003). Effects of a behavioral intervention, tai chi chih, on varicella-zoster virus specific immunity and health functioning in older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 824-30.
Irwin, M., Pike, J., & Oxman, M. (2004). Shingles immunity and health functioning in the elderly: Tai chi chih as a behavioral treatment. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(3), 223-232.
Jahnke, R. (2002). The healing promise of qi: Creating extraordinary wellness through qigong and tai chi. Chicago, Il: Contemporary Books.
Jin, P. (1992). Efficacy of tai chi, brisk walking, meditation, and reading in reducing mental and emotional stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 36(4), 361-370.
Jones, B. M. (2001). Changes in cytokine production in healthy subjects practicing guolin qigong: A pilot study. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(8), September 29, 2008.
Judge, J. O., Lindsey, C., Underwood, M., & Winsemius, D. (1993). Balance improvements in older women: Effects of exercise training. Physical Therapy, 73, 254-265.
Kemp, C. A. (2004). Qigong as a therapeutic intervention with older adults. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 22(4), 351-373.
Kutner, N. G., Barnhart, H., Wolf, S. L., McNeely, E., & Xu, T. (1997). Self-report benefits of tai chi practice by older adults. Journals of Gerontology, 52B(5), P242-6. Lan, C., Lai, J. S., & Chen, S. Y. (2002). Tai chi chuan: An ancient wisdom on exercise and health promotion. Sports Medicine, 32(4), 217-224.
Lan, C., Chou, S., Chen, S., Lai, J., & Wong, M. (2004). The aerobic capacity and ventilatory efficiency during exercise in qigong and tai chi chuan practitioners. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 32(1), 141-50.
Lansinger, B., Larsson, E., Persson, L.,C., & Carosson, J.,Y. (2007). Qigong and exercise therapy in patients with long-term neck pain: A prospective randomized trial. Spine, 32(22), 2415-2422.
Larkey, L., Jahnke, R., Etnier, J., & Gonzalez, J. (in press). Meditative movement as a category of exercise: Implications for research. Journal of Physical Activity & Health,
Lee, L. Y. K., Lee, D. T. F., & Woo, J. (2007). Effect of tai chi on state self-esteem and health- related quality of life in older chinese residential care home residents. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(8), 1580-2.
Lee, M. S., Jeong, S. M., Kim, Y. K., Park, K. W., Lee, M. S., Ryu, H., et al. (2003). Qi-training enhances respiratory burst function and adhesive capacity of neutrophils in young adults: A preliminary study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(1), 141-148.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review. Rheumatology, 46(11), 1648-51.
Lee, M. S., Chen, K. W., Sancier, K. M., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for cancer treatment: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Acta Oncologica, 46(6), 717-22.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Is tai chi an effective adjunct in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15(6), 597-601.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Guo, R., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for hypertension: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Hypertension, 25(8), 1525-32.
Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for cardiovascular disease and its risk factors: A systematic review. Journal of Hypertension, 25(9), 1974-5.
Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Choi, E. S., & Chung, H. T. (2003). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, blood pressure determinants and ventilatory function in middle-aged patients with essential hypertension. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(3), 489-497.
Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Kim, H. J., & Choi, E. S. (2004). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other lipid levels in essential hypertension patients. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 777-786.
Lee, M. S., Lim, H. J., & Lee, M. S. (2004). Impact of qigong exercise on self-efficacy and other cognitive perceptual variables in patients with essential hypertension. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 10(4), 675-680.
Lee, M., Soo Lee, M., Kim, H., & Moon, S. (2003). Qigong reduced blood pressure and catecholamine levels of patients with essential hypertension. International Journal of Neuroscience, 113(12), 1691.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2005). Falls self-efficacy as a mediator of fear of falling in an exercise intervention for older adults. Journals of Gerontology.Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60B(1), P34-40.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & Shirai, M. (2003). A simpler eight-form easy tai chi for elderly adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11(2), 206-18.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Chaumeton, N. R., Duncan, T., & Duncan, S. (2002). Tai chi as a means to enhance self-esteem: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 21(1), 70-89.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., & McAuley, E. (2004). Tai chi: Improving functional balance and predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(12), 2046-2052.
Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., McAuley, E., Chaumeton, N., Eckstrom, E., et al. (2005). Tai chi and fall reductions in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology.Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60A(2), 187-194.
Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Chaumeton, N., et al. (2001). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi exercise on physical function among older persons: A randomized contolled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 139-46.
Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Fisher, K. J., Duncan, T. E., & Duncan, S. C. (2001). Tai chi, self-efficacy, and physical function in the elderly. Prevention Science, 2(4), 229-39.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., Irbe, D., Tearse, R. G., & Weimer, C. (2004). Tai chi and self- rated quality of sleep and daytime sleepiness in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(6), 892-900.
Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2002). Delineating the impact of tai chi training on physical function among the elderly. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2 Suppl), 92-7.
Li, J. X., Hong, Y., & Chan, K. M. (2001). Tai chi: Physiological characteristics and beneficial effects on health. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(3), 148-56.
Li, Z. Q., & Shen, Q. (1995). The impact of the performance of wu's tai chi chuan on the activity of natural killer cells in peripheral blood in the elderly. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, (14), 53-56.
Maciaszek, J., Osiski, W., Szeklicki, R., & Stemplewski, R. (2007). Effect of tai chi on body balance: Randomized controlled trial in men with osteopenia or osteoporosis. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(1), 1-9.
Maddalozzo, G. F., & Snow, C. M. (2000). High intensity resistance training: Effects on bone in older men and women. Calcified Tissue International, 66(6), 399-404.
Mannerkorpi, K., Arndorw, M., Mannerkorpi, K., & Arndorw, M. (2004). Efficacy and feasibility of a combination of body awareness therapy and qigong in patients with fibromyalgia: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(6), 279-81.
Mansky, P., Sannes, T., Wallerstedt, D., Ge, A., Ryan, M., Johnson, L. L., et al. (2006). Tai chi chuan: Mind-body practice or exercise intervention? studying the benefit for cancer survivors. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 5(3), 192-201.
Manzaneque, J. M., Vera, F. M., Maldonado, E. F., Carranque, G., Cubero, V. M., Morell, M., et al. (2004). Assessment of immunological parameters following a qigong training program. Medical Science Monitor, 10(6), CR264-70.
Matsuda, S., Martin, D., & Yu, T. (2005). Ancient exercise for modern rehab: Tai chi promotes wellness and fitness among a wide range of patients. Rehab Management: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Rehabilitation, 18(2), 24-27.
McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Parker, S. W., Scarborough, D. M., Wayne, P. M., & Wolf, S. L. (2005). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation improve vestibulopathic gait via different neuromuscular mechanisms: Preliminary report. BMC Neurology, 5(1), 3.
McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Wayne, P. M., Scarborough, D. M., & Parker, S. W. (2004). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation effects on gaze and whole-body stability. Journal of Vestibular Research, 14(6), 467-78.
Morales, F. J., Martinez, A., Mendez, M., Agarrado, A., Ortega, F., Fernandez-Guerra, J., et al. (1999). A shuttle walk test for assessment of functional capacity in chronic heart failure. American Heart Journal, 138, 291-298.
Motivala, S. J., Sollers, J., Thayer, J., & Irwin, M. R. (2006). Tai chi chih acutely decreases sympathetic nervous system activity in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A- Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(11), 1177-80.
Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., Gill, D. L., Roscoe, J. A., Lang, D., & Murphy, K. (2004). Tai chi chuan, health-related quality of life and self-esteem: A randomized trial with breast cancer survivors. Supportive Care in Cancer, 12(12), 871-6.
Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., & Zhao, H. (2006). A pilot study to assess the influence of tai chi chuan on functional capacity among breast cancer survivors. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 4(3), 139-45.
Nowalk, M. P., Prendergast, J. M., Bayles, C. M., D'Amico, F. J., & Colvin, G. C. (2001). A randomized trial of exercise programs among older individuals living in two long-term care facilities: The FallsFREE program. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(7), 859- 65.
Orr, R., Tsang, T., Lam, P., Comino, E., & Singh, M. F. (2006). Mobility impairment in type 2 diabetes: Association with muscle power and effect of tai chi intervention. Diabetes Care, 29(9), 2120-2.
Pippa, L., Manzoli, L., Corti, I., Congedo, G., Romanazzi, L., & Parruti, G. (2007). Functional capacity after traditional chinese medicine (qi gong) training in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: A randomized controlled trial. Preventive Cardiology, 10(1), 22-5.
Rogers, C. E., Larkey, L. K., & Keller, C. (2009). A review of clinical trials of tai chi and qigong in older adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(2), 245-279.
Ryu, H., Jun, C. D., Lee, B. S., Choi, B. M., Kim, H. M., & Chung, H. T. (1995). Effects of qigong training on proportions of T lymphocyte subsets in human peripheral blood. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 23(1), 27-36.
Ryu, H., Mo, H. Y., Mo, G. D., Choi, B. M., Jun, C. D., Seo, C. M., et al. (1995). Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in qigong (chun do sun bup) trainees by multitest cell mediated immunity. American Journal of Chinese, 23(2), 139-144.
Sancier, K. M. (1996). Medical applications of qigong. Alternative Therapies, 2(1), 40-46. Sancier, K. M. (1999). Therapeutic benefits of qigong exercises in combination with drugs. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 5(4), 383-389.
Sancier, K. M., & Hu, B. (1991). Medical applications of qigong and emitted qi on humans, animals, cell cultures, and plants. American Journal of Acupuncture, 19(4), 367-377.
Sattin, R. W. (1992). Falls among older persons: A public health perspective. Annual Review of Public Health, 13(1), 489-508.
Sattin, R. W., Easley, K. A., Wolf, S. L., Chen, Y., & Kutner, M. H. (2005). Reduction in fear of falling through intense tai chi exercise training in older, transitionally frail adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(7), 1168-1178.
Shen, C., Williams, J. S., Chyu, M., Paige, R. L., Stephens, A. L., Chauncey, K. B., et al. (2007). Comparison of the effects of tai chi and resistance training on bone metabolism in the elderly: A feasibility study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(3), 369-81.
Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2003). Effects of tai chi exercise on pain, balance, muscle strength, and perceived difficulties in physical functioning in older women with osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(9), 2039-44.
Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2007). Effects of a sun-style tai chi exercise on arthritic symptoms, motivation and the performance of health behaviors in women with osteoarthritis. Daehan Ganho Haghoeji, 37(2), 249-56.
Spirduso, W. W., Francis, K. L., & MacRae, P. G. (2005). Physical dimensions of aging (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stenlund, T., Lindstrom, B., Granlund, M., & Burell, G. (2005). Cardiac rehabilitation for the elderly: Qi gong and group discussions. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, 12(1), 5-11.
Sun, X. S., Xu, Y. G., & Xia, Y. J. (1989). Determination of e-rosette-forming lymphocyte in aged subjects with tai ji quan exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 10(3), 217- 219.
Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Froelicher, E. S. (2004). The effectiveness of tai chi exercise in improving aerobic capacity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(1), 48- 57.
Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Haskell, W. L. (2007). Tai chi exercise and stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 14(4), 9-22.
Thomas, G. N., Hong, A. W. L., Tomlinson, B., Lau, E., Lam, C. W. K., Sanderson, J. E., et al. (2005). Effects of tai chi and resistance training on cardiovascular risk factors in elderly chinese subjects: A 12-month longitudinal, randomized, controlled intervention study. Clinical Endocrinology, 63(6), 663-9.
Tsai, J., Wang, W., Chan, P., Lin, L., Wang, C., Tomlinson, B., et al. (2003). The beneficial effects of tai chi chuan on blood pressure and lipid profile and anxiety in a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 9(5), 747-754.
Tsang, H. W. H., Fung, K. M. T., Chan, A. S. M., Lee, G., & Chan, F. (2006). Effect of a qigong exercise programme on elderly with depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(9), 890-7.
Tsang, H. W. H., Mok, C. K., Yeung, Y. T. A., & Chan, S. Y. C. (2003). The effect of qigong on general and psychosocial health of elderly with chronic physical illnesses: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(5), 441-9.
Tsang, T., Orr, R., Lam, P., Comino, E.,J., & Singh, M. F. (2007). Health benefits of tai chi for older patients with type 2 diabetes: The "move it for diabetes study"- A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(3), 429-439.
Verhagen, A. P., Immink, M., van der Meulen, A., & Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A. (2004). The efficacy of tai chi chuan in older adults: A systematic review. Family Practice, 21(1), 107- 13.
Voukelatos, A., Cumming, R. G., Lord, S. R., & Rissel, C. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi for the prevention of falls: The central sydney tai chi trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(8), 1185-91.
Wang, C., Roubenoff, R., Lau, J., Kalish, R., Schmid, C. H., Tighiouart, H., et al. (2005). Effect of tai chi in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 44(5), 685-7.
Wang, C., Collet, J. P., & Lau, J. (2004). The effect of tai chi on health outcomes in patients with chronic conditions: A systematic review.[see comment]. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(5), 493-501.
Wayne, P. M., Kiel, D. P., Krebs, D. E., Davis, R. B., Savetsky-German, J., Connelly, M., et al. (2007). The effects of tai chi on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 88(5), 673-80.
Wayne, P. M., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Gill-Body, K. M., Scarborough, D., McGibbon, C. A., et al. (2004). Can tai chi improve vestibulopathic postural control? Archives of Physical and Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85, 142-152.
Drs R. Jahnke and L. Larkey - A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi – accepted with revisions, by 52 The Am. Journal of Health Promotion. Do not circulate without the direct permission of the lead author.
Wenneberg, S., Gunnarsson, L., & Ahlstrom, G. (2004). Using a novel exercise programme for patients with muscular dystrophy. part II: A quantitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(10), 595-602.
Winsmann, F. (2005). The effect of tai chi chuan meditation on dissociation in a group of veterans. (Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University). Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology, 147.
Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Ellison, G. L., & Coogler, C. E. (1997). The effect of tai chi quan and computerized balance training on postural stability in older subjects. atlanta FICSIT group. frailty and injuries: Cooperative studies on intervention techniques. Physical Therapy, 77(4), 371-81.
Wolf, S. L., Coogler, C., & Xu, T. (1997). Exploring the basis for tai chi chuan as a therapeutic exercise approach. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(8), 886-92.
Wolf, S. L., O'Grady, M., Easley, K. A., Guo, Y., Kressig, R. W., & Kutner, M. (2006). The influence of intense tai chi training on physical performance and hemodynamic outcomes in transitionally frail, older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A-Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(2), 184-189.
Wolf, S. L., Sattin, R. W., Kutner, M., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., & Gregor, R. J. (2003a). Intense tai chi exercise training and fall occurrences in older, transitionally frail adults: A randomized, controlled trial... includes commentary by lavery L and studenski S. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1693-701, 1804-5.
Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Kutner, N. G., McNeely, E., Coogler, C., Xu, T., et al. (2003b). Selected as the best paper in the 1990s: Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: An investigation of tai chi and computerized balance training. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1794-803.
Woo, J., Hong, A., Lau, E., & Lynn, H. (2007). A randomised controlled trial of tai chi and resistance exercise on bone health, muscle strength and balance in community-living elderly people. Age & Ageing, 36(3), 262-8.
World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. Second World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, Spain.
Xu, S. W., & Wang, W. J. (1986). A study of the effects of tai ji quan on endocrinology. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 150-151.
Yang, Y., Verkuilen, J., Rosengren, K. S., Mariani, R. A., Reed, M., Grubisich, S. A., et al. (2007). Effects of a taiji and qigong intervention on the antibody response to influenza vaccine in older adults. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(4), 597-607.
Yeh, G. Y., Wood, M. J., Lorell, B. H., Stevenson, L. W., Eisenberg, D. M., Wayne, P. M., et al. (2004). Effects of tai chi mind-body movement therapy on functional status and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Medicine, 117(8), 541-8.
Young, D. R., Appel, L. J., Jee, S., & Miller, E. R.,3rd. (1999). The effects of aerobic exercise and tai chi on blood pressure in older people: Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(3), 277-84.
Zhang, G. D. (1990). The impacts of 48-form tai chi chuan and yi qi yang fei gong on the serum levels of IgG, gM, IgA, and IgE in human. Journal of Beijing Institute of Physical Education, 4, 12-14.
Zhang, J., IshikawaTakata, K., Yamazaki, H., Morita, T., & Ohta, T. (2006). The effects of tai chi chuan on physiological function and fear of falling in the less robust elderly: An intervention study for preventing falls. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 42(2), 107- 116.
Zugck, C., Kruger, C., & Durr, S. (2000). Is the 6 minute walk test a reliable substitute for peak oxygen uptake in patients with dialated cardiomyopathy? European Heart Journal, 21, 540- 549.
Some Web Resources
• Canada Qigong Research Society ( http://canadaqigong.org)
• Chi Center, Petaluma, CA ( http://www.chicenter.com)
• Energy Arts, Fairfax, CA ( http://www.energyarts.com)
• Literati Tradition, YeYoung Culture Studies ( http://www.literati-tradition.com/qi_gong_and_tai_chi.html)
• Pangu Shengong, San Francisco, CA ( http://www.pangu.org/english)
• Radiant Lotus Qigong, Kahuna Valley, HI ( http://www.radiantlotusqigong.com)
• Qigong Institute, Los Altos, CA ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org)
• Qigong Research and Practice Center, Nederland, CO ( http://www.qigonghealing.com)
• Qigong Research Society, Mt Laurel, NJ ( http://www.qigongresearchsociety.com)
• Qigong T'ai chi ch'uan Article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi_chuan)
• Qigong Wikipedia Article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong)
• Wuji Productions ( http://www.wujiproductions.com)
Some News about Qigong (from Qigong Institute)
The Harvard Health Review: The Harvard Health Review calls Tai Chi "medication in motion" and describes how tai chi when combined with standard treatment is helpful for a range of conditions including arthritis, low bone density, breast cancer, heart disease, heart failure, hypertension, Parkinson's disease, sleep problems, and stroke. Harvard Medical School, Harvard Health Publications, May, 2009 ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/May/The-health-benefits-of-tai-chi)
Wall Street Journal: 'Alternative' Medicine Is Mainstream - The evidence is mounting that diet and lifestyle (including practices such as Qigong, Tai Chi, and Yoga) are the best cures for our worst afflictions. Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJ010909.pdf)
Time Magazine: "Tai Chi is the perfect exercise". Time Magazine July 31, 2002 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TimeMag31Jul02.pdf)
New York Times: "The face of exercise is changing in America. Instead of relentlessly pursuing a sculptured physique, people are chasing longevity, stress reduction and improved health through mind-body practices like qigong. The realm of working out has shifted from people just wanting to build bulk and lean, toned muscles to them understanding that the inner health of the body is just as important as the outer health." New York Times April 5, 2007 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/NYTimes5Apr07.pdf)
Wall Street Journal: The Next Yoga: a Sweat-Free Workout Giving Up on Perfect Pecs, Boomers Embrace Qigong -- Is Qigong Tiger Wood's Secret Weapon? Wall Street Journal May 13, 2003 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJournal13May03.pdf)
Los Angeles Times: A new study published in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society describes the "striking immunity-boosting effect" of Tai Chi, the most well-known moving form of Qigong. Tai Chi "builds aerobic conditioning. It relaxes the body's response to stress, which tends to intensify as people age. And it increases the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain". Los Angeles Times April 24, 2007 ( http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/LATimes24Apr07.pdf)
US News and World Report: "Tai chi, the most famous branch of Qigong, or exercises that harness the qi (life energy, pronounced "chee"), has been linked to health benefits for virtually everyone from children to seniors. Researchers aren't sure exactly how, but studies show that tai chi improves the quality of life for breast cancer patients and Parkinson's sufferers. Its combination of martial arts movements and deep breathing can be adapted even for people in wheelchairs. And it has shown promise in treating sleep problems and high blood pressure." US News & World Report, November 26, 2010 ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/pain/articles/2010/11/26/for-health-benefits-try-tai-chi.html)
Pmrich ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's focus on scientific basis, including randomized controlled trials concerning health benefits:
Scientific Review
Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.
Pmrich ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
References moved to separate section to keep page readable
is a Mayo Clinic study biased? why is this not included in the wiki article? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160 http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies Shape55 ( talk) 05:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Priorities:
Pmrich ( talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There are some sections in the chinese qigong page that are worth putting in the English version also. (e.g Qigong classification 分类 3.1 硬氣功 3.2 軟氣功 , Qigong branches 氣功的派別 4.1 吐納 4.2 禪定 4.3 存想 4.4 內丹 4.5 導引術 , The sensations of Qi 氣感) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.46.141 ( talk) 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What would it take to resolve the problems on this article?
Its references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Tagged since September 2011. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since September 2011. Its tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. Tagged since September 2011.
A tall wishlist, indeed. But it seems like something worth working on. Is there anyone else actively editing this page? The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Traditionally, qigong training has been esoteric and secretive, with knowledge passed from master to student. Over the centuries, the exchange of ideas between various elements within Chinese society has created a more unified overview of qigong practice even though each segment maintains its own detailed interpretations and methods. In China, the emphasis has shifted increasingly on health benefits, traditional medicine, and scientific perspective, with decreasing emphasis on traditional aspects of qigong practice, though with notable exceptions.
In contrast, while most practitioners worldwide also focus on health benefits, many have also accepted the philosophical elements of qigong practice and pay homage to its rich past. The traditional philosophical, medical, and martial arts origins are recognized and used as justification for the effectiveness of qigong. [1]
... This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, qigong studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects. Research has not been conducted to evaluate the importance of different facets of qigong practice such as exercise, meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, depth of practice, and difference in forms.
The article has quotation marks around the word "scientific" throughout the article. These need to be removed. Quotes are usually meant to express sarcasm or doubt. Sarcasm has no place, and doubt needs to be expanded in the text, not left unexplained. Greenman ( talk) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907), the term qigong as it is currently used was coined in the Maoist era of the 1950s, specifically in the 1957 book "Experience in Healing with Qi Gong" by Liu Guizhen 劉貴珍 (1920–1982) to emphasize health and scientific approaches, while avoiding association with ancient spiritual practices and mysticism. [2]
suggest to rephrase
" Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "
as
" Although the term qigong (氣功) has been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "
《太清調氣經》:“服氣功餘暇,取靜室無人處,散發脫衣,...” - 隋唐間著作
气功标准教程, 北京体育大学出版社, 第1版 (2006年9月1日), ISBN: 7811005409
119.236.12.247 ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Author: Yang Bai Long. Date: 2006. Title: 气功标准教程 Qi gong biao zhun jiao cheng = Qigong Standard Guide. Publisher: 北京体育大学出版社 Beijing ti yu da xue chu ban she = Beijing Sports University Press.
The natural Qi regulation scripture(太清調氣經) is one of the books in the Orthodox Taoist Canon ( Daozang). The term qigong is used in the following sentence
... 煉氣法又因服氣功,餘暇取靜室無人處,...
translated as
... (We) 煉practice氣the qi法method又因for服the ingesting氣 qi功 gong (skill). 餘暇 At leisure, 取 find靜室 a quiet room無人處 without people. …
The term ingesting Qi (服氣) is used throughout the book and is a qigong method by regulating breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.12.82 ( talk) 03:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In the 1990s Li Hongzhi filled a "spiritual void" by introducing Falun Gong, which included qigong exercises and teachings that renewed emphasis on spirituality, morality, and the supernatural. Popularity of Falun Gong grew rapidly, and in 1999 was banned as a "heretical organization" and "cult". [3] [4]
More text to consider - already in Qigong history and Falun gong. Vitalforce ( talk) 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's work together to resolve the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) dispute. As rewritten does the article now conform with NPOV guidelines and could we remove the NPOV tag? If you feel the article still does not maintain a NPOV please "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" and "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article". Vitalforce ( talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Remove Tai chi section: Creating a section on taichi under definition is misleading. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many forms of Qigong. Why should we specifically compare taichai and qigong under the definition section. Shouldn't we create a separate comparision table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Add table comparing qigong and other exercise: The following has been classified as original research, unreferenced and undone. I thought these are well understood. Can someone be kind enough to help to find some reference or help to create a better table to give Qigong a better perspective?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 ( talk) 6 March 2012
Qigong | Yoga | Stretching Exercise | Strength Exercise | Martial Art (Kung Fu) | Meditation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Muscle training (direct or indirect) | Emphasized | Emphasized | ||||
Tendon stretching | Emphasized | Emphasized | ||||
Deep relaxation | Emphasized | Emphasized | Emphasized | |||
Mental focus on body parts | Emphasized | |||||
Breathing control | Emphasized | |||||
Fighting and defense | Emphasized | |||||
Breathing frequency | Decrease | Increase | Increase | |||
Heart beat | Increase | Increase | ||||
Improve blood circulation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Religious association | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary |
Add qi "experiment": People can read through the article but not knowing what actually Qi and Qigong is. I tried to put a description of a simple experiment but it has been removed by a robot which considered it as vandalism. The original description is as follows:
Add qualifier about martial arts: This statement "The practice of qigong is an important component in Chinese martial arts." should be rephrased to "The practice of qigong is an important component in SOME Chinese martial arts". There are many forms martial arts which do not have a Qigong component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.44.131 ( talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Rewording: "A person is believed to become ill or die when qi becomes diminished or unbalanced. " --> suggest to rephrase as "It is believed that a person will become ill when Qi becomes unbalanced and a person will die if qi is exhausted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.189.2 ( talk) 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The oldest discovered Qigong diagram is from the western Han dynasty Mawangdui tomb (206 BCE– 9 BC). The diagram is named " Tao Yin Diagram".
http://chimed.cmu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=789
1974年湖南長沙馬王堆三號漢墓出土的《導引圖》,是現存最早的一卷保健運動的工筆彩色畫。這是西元前3世紀末的作品,相當於中國西漢前期。
119.236.12.247 ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There's barely anything in this article to stop readers coming away with the idea that qigong is just another pilates. The whole big deal about qigong (according to all sorts of books, not just me) is that the kind of feelings it produces don't stop at "I feel exercised". They can also include "There is a tangible field of warm tingling energy in my hand that I can draw up and down my arm at will". Qigong's abstractions have experiential basis. I'm no qigong expert, but still come away from this article feeling that its authors just don't get it. 92.30.13.19 ( talk) 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.125.110.120 ( talk) 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Qigong has been purported to enhance health and well-being with many benefits, including improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. [5] Many of these claims are supported only by anecdotal evidence, traditional lore, and teachings in master/student lineages. [6] Research examining health benefits of qigong is increasing, but there is little financial incentive to support research and still only a limited number of studies meet accepted medical and scientific standards of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In a 2010 comprehensive review of qigong and tai chi, [7] a literature search of peer-reviewed journals in medical databases for the period of 1993-2007 found a total of seventy-seven RCT studies that examined the benefits of qigong and Tai chi practice. The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:
While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise. The authors called for further studies with standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). They concluded that qigong and tai chi have similar beneficial effects and have advantages of low cost, low risk, and high accessibility.
Vitalforce ( talk) 04:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi
by Roger Jahnke, Linda Larkey, Carol Rogers, Jennifer Etnier, and Fang Lin
Abstract
Objective: Research examining psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi is growing rapidly. The many practices described as Qigong or Tai Chi have similar theoretical roots, proposed mechanisms of action and expected benefits. Research trials and reviews, however, treat them as separate targets of examination. This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both.
Data Sources: The key words tai chi, taiji, and qigong were entered into electronic search engines for the Cumulative Index for Allied Health and Nursing (CINAHL), Psychological Literature (PsychInfo), PubMed, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar.
Study Inclusion Criteria: RCTs reporting on the results of Qigong or Tai Chi interventions and published in peer reviewed journals published from 1993–2007
Data Extraction: Country, type and duration of activity, number/type of subjects, control conditions, and reported outcomes were recorded for each study.
Synthesis: Outcomes related to Qigong and Tai Chi practice were identified and evaluated.
Results: Seventy-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The 9 outcome category groupings that emerged were: bone density (n=4), cardiopulmonary effects (n=19), physical function (n=16), falls and related risk factors (n=23), Quality of Life (n=17), self-efficacy (n=8), patient reported outcomes (n=13), psychological symptoms (n=27), and immune function (n=6).
Conclusions: Research has demonstrated consistent, significant results for a number of health benefits in RCTs, evidencing progress toward recognizing the similarity and equivalence of Qigong and Tai Chi.
Vitalforce ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on the review, not personal opinion of me or you or any other editor, the original language should be retained. Note your undoing my change would be interpreted as an inappropriate start of an editing war. Note the further clarification with qualification concerning exercise. Many of the studies were blunt tools in terms of distinguishing qigong and exercise. Vitalforce ( talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is why the following was included: "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." Your edit changes the emphasis and misrepresents the findings of the review, apparently to support your own position. Vitalforce ( talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the quality of the qigong article, and in other articles relating to health and medicine. As you point out, mention of similar results is "in the 4th paragraph of the Discussion" (not even mentioned in the abstract, and not the main emphasis of the review, since this was not a rigorous analysis of comparison with ordinary exercise. There are many other Discussion points that may better be emphasized. Is your concern addressed by the following language? "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." This appears adequate. I am glad to see you working directly with the reference. Vitalforce ( talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Vitalforce ( talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we reach consensus and proceed? Are there any concerns or discussion about the proposed edits? If not, I will proceed as proposed. Vitalforce ( talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I am curious why you want to highlight exercise when this is not the emphasis in the review's abstract or conclusion. Would you please meet on middle ground that retains the original statement of the main finding of the review, and place language about exercise in the paragraph after the list of benefits, where it can be properly contextualized? The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:" is one of two main conclusions of the review and follows the "important Wikipedia" principle "to remain encyclopedic". Yes, it is fine afterwards to elaborate that based on a smaller subset of studies qigong/tai chi showed similar positive benefits with other exercise (and with education and acupuncture). The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a similar positive role to ordinary physical exercise in each of nine categories:" is neither one of the main conclusions, nor it it strictly true in that exercise (and education and acupuncture treatments) did not display all the nine categories. Let's craft this so it is factually correct and represents the conclusions of the review. Also, let's craft an explanation that the review (and the studies it reviews) recognize that qigong combines movement, controlled breath, focused attention, and meditation (not the same as other exercise). Vitalforce ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I see the Mayo Clinic study is not included in this article. this is essential: http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160
I came across this as well if someone wants to google for the research studies: http://yanxinqigong.net/research/index.htm Shape55 ( talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the medical research section with systematic reviews. I should note that the Jahnke review that is being discussed above is a lower type of evidence (a literature review) and there I trimmed it for WP:WEIGHT purposes (I would also not object to its removal; a study that does not assess the underlying quality of data is not really worth mentioning here, I think). Yobol ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the statement "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials." in the summary section is a scientific one. But it is just one of the points for "The main arguments from the view of skeptics against the correlation between qigong practices and health-related results are:". It should be grouped under the same section. So1308 ( talk) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I would like to start a more directed discussion on the medical evidence and support for Qigong in the talk pages before making changes. I've been talking with several people and some suggested the following change, which I think we should implement.
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. [8]
New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice are widespread and include improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. [5] [9] [10] While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice [7], an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research” [8]
Would this change be acceptable to everyone? If not, what specifically is the problem with it, and how can we come to consensus on a more unbiased and balanced view of the Qigong research which, though not yet definitive, is highly supportive and provides some evidence.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. CJ ( talk) 16:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
On another note, we might want to consider the following:
I do believe that we might find something useful in Peter Wayne's recent book - Harvard Medical school Guide to Tai chi.
I agree CJ. I consider statements from Harvard Medical School researchers to have high credibility. Kleinpj ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Conventional medical science on the Chinese art of Tai Chi now shows what Tai Chi masters have known for centuries: regular practice leads to more vigor and flexibility, better balance and mobility, and a sense of well-being. Cutting-edge research from Harvard Medical School also supports the long-standing claims that Tai Chi also has a beneficial impact on the health of the heart, bones, nerves and muscles, immune system, and the mind. This research provides fascinating insight into the underlying physiological mechanisms that explain how Tai Chi actually works. [11] However, nomenclature is a problem. We accept that qigong is a group of modalities: quiet meditation, moving meditation, self massage, external applications including a number of additional modalities such as cupping, tapping, 'sword finger' , even diet and herbal remedies. The vast majority of recent research is limited to moving meditation using tai chi postures. We can assume the premise that tai chi forms can cultivate qi and use the current research to our advantage to promote qigong with the caveat that this is a very limited inquiry.
Again - I'd like to hear your thoughts. CJ ( talk) 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that I'm afraid that you haven't kept up on the research. Look at WebMD, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Medical School, Vanderbilt Medical School - I could go on and on. It's almost as if you close your eyes and say "it's not there, I can't see it". The overwhelming majority of hospitals and medical communities have come, within the last five years, to the determination that Qigong & Tai Chi is safe, effective, and has positive benefits as an integrative medical practice. The evidence is growing, and clear, but needs more clinical trials to be definitive. That's what just about every synthesis and meta-analysis about the topic has said for the past five years. Your comment that we do not have sufficient data appears to me to be disengenuous because even when people show you the data, you are unwilling to look at it. Additionally, you say there is no bar to testing the hypothesis that Qigong and Tai Chi are safe and effective, but the fact is that there is a huge bar to testing that hypothesis. Unlike pharmaceutical and medical device companies who can afford to fund clinical trials because they get a return on their investment, there is no money to be made on Qigong. Add the fact that it is very difficult (though not impossible, as I explain in my peer-reviewed article published in a medical journal) to do a double blind clinical study on a behavioral therapy, then you have quite adequate reason to understand why we don't have solid proof of the efficacy of Qigong --- yet. I just want the Qigong article to be unbiased and more accurately reflect the current status of research, which is positive but not definitive due to the difficulties involved in clinical trials and the poor quality of research available so far. That's not wishful thinking. That's not putting a positive spin on something. The growing body of evidence is simply a statement of fact. Based on many references and sources acceptable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Let's look again at the text I am proposing (actually, I'm going to change it a bit to match more closely the sources): Old text:
A bald statement that evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive without any context as to why, and a poor quality of the clinical trials without any explanation or mention of positive trends in non-clinical research. New text:
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice
[7], an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”
[8]The same information, but within the context of where the researchers currently are. An indication that there may be positive benefits according to limited data, but more data is needed to draw firm conclusions. In my opinion, the second is the more unbiased statement, where as the first is a biased portrayal of the information because it is partial and incomplete. Since I thought impartial and unbiased was what we were trying for, it would make sense that the second statement would be more acceptable to the Wikipedia community as a whole. You appear to disagree, but I'm hoping for other people to be willing to consider the matter. I believe that it would be unfair for the article to be written solely based upon the opinion of someone who might not be as up to date in the research on this topic as I am. CJ ( talk) 00:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, again. Jytdog. So now, despite the fact that well-respected medical centers such as Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt University, Tufts Medical school - despite the fact that they are all provide Integrative healthcare (NOT alternative medicine, which is not integrated into the whole medical care model, but integrative medicine, which is providing generally safe and effective mind-body therapies in treating the whole person, not just the disease) despite the fact that they support these therapies, you still cling to the notion that there is no widespread agreement in the medical community that there is value to these health practices? The current text seems to me to be stating only part of the truth, not the whole truth. Without the context, it seems just a bit misleading. Don't we want the beginning paragraphs to reflect as unbiased and accurate information as can make it?
Perhaps we could compromise on something in between. Why don't you give it a try, and draft a statement that is not as minimalist as the current text, but not as fully developed as my proposed text?
CJ (
talk)
02:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
JytogFrom your statements above, it appears you are prejudiced against "alt. med." and that you are not recognizing the NIH, Mayo Clinic, or Harvard Medical School as being reputable sources. Your rigidity to stick with past research, distrust of "alternative/integrative" methods, and persistence to repeat old material is questionable. If the more current sources that the Professor, CJ, and others offer you are not proof enough that we need to move forward on this, I would respectfully ask you to reflect on how you are helping in this project,or is the intention to continually throw up roadblocks of archaic sources to keep us stuck in the past as well?
NatHealth1 (
talk)
21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Thank you for your response and it is not that Wikipedia policies are at issue, it is that a number of people have already supplied sources/studies for you to peruse and yet the changes CJ suggest are continually rebuffed. The Professor also gave credible sources in support of the benefits of Qigong, and CJ changed the wording and diluted its strength. You were invited to help with the wording, to collaborate, and you appear to ignore any new studies presented. Others are chiming in, with support of the changes. Please review all the data given above as it appears it is not being examined, but dismissed. Appreciate your willingness to work together as a team so that we can move ahead. NatHealth1 ( talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to the heart of the matter. If this is the case, I again ask why are we not including Jahnke's meta-analysis or the Harvard Medical School's findings? NatHealth1 ( talk) 13:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Twice now my addition has been reverted, and I would like to discuss it before filing a dispute. I feel that erasing my additional quote is allowing an incorrect and biased quote taken out of context to remain, while erasing my quote from the same article. When Yobol undid one of my edits because I "cherry picked" a quote from a journal article that contradicted the conclusion. However, I read the entire article, not just the abstract summary, and in my opinion the other quote was the one that was "cherry picked". Rather than erase the misleading quote, I added another quote from the conclusion of the article that more fairly represented the overall views of the investigators. With both quotes, I felt there was a much more balanced representation of the conclusion of the article. Please undo you revert and allow the more accurate portrayal of the article to stand. CJ ( talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/health-benefits-tai-chi-qigong
http://www.amazon.com/The-Harvard-Medical-School-Guide/dp/1590309421
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15006825?dopt=Abstract
http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/inside-integrative-medicine/issues/dec-2012.pdf
I could give you dozens more. Everyone says the same thing - positive results, growing evidence, not enough clinical studies, nothing definitive. Shouldn't Wikipedia's article say the same thing?
CJ ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:JytdogI hear what you are saying about reliable sources and I also see a pattern of refuting any change whatsoever. CJ provided links for you to peruse as well as outlining and explaining at length her suggested changes. Was any of this material read or was an immediate rebuttal instituted without any regard for what was offered? Again, I don't believe this is a balanced discussion and any attempt to broaden the definition is ignored. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Let's cooperate and meet half way. If the research is not enough to convince "you," then let's reference these studies and infer that there are strong indicators of health benefits. Surely, there is a way to word this that would meet both yours and CJs standards. NatHealth1 ( talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with CJ. The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi. It is recommended by many respected and evidence-based medical resources - Harvard, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic. I support CJ's changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.31.167 ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental focus on guiding qi through the body 調心. It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental intent on guiding qi through the body 調心 and possibly external to it.
The word focus is static, while the word intent is active. Most all literature about using Qigong techniques requires intent rather than focus to guide qi. Also, qi can be moved outside the body when it is directed to do so. There are many masters who refer to the existence of a Qi ball that can surround the body to provide both awareness and protection. There is also the whole topic of Qi healing that utilizes the qi from one person to affect the body of a patient. ( SequimTao ( talk) 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC))
/* Health Benefit */ It seems to me that one premise of this continuing discussion is based on an 'all or nothing' belief. Fact: there is a growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic benefit of qigong exercise. I support the proposed change as a more accurate representation of the 2014 state of research evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinpj ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The conversation in other areas is getting a bit dense, so I'd like to bring it all together again in this new area.
The question: which of these provide a more unbiased, more accurate, impartial reflection of the current state of research for Qigong and other Integrative (not alternative, not complimentary, but integrative) health practices?
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, lowering blood pressure and decreasing pain. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
(I've taken out the references at this point - but each sentence has been appropriately referenced with an acceptable reference based upon Wikipedia guidelines.)
Some editors have proposed that we should not make changes because the current statement is as far as Wikipedians should go; "almost all studies showed positive benefits" is not definitive, whereas "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" is definitive. Both are true - that fact does not appear to be in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it is more or less biased to make any comments at all that describe positive benefits until and unless we can make definitive statements about the topic.
There appears to some editors who think the second is more accurate and fair. The second way of indicating the effectiveness (poor quality research, as opposed to inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials which seems to suggest that the RESULTS of the trials was poor rather than that the positive effects cannot necessarily be generalized because it is based on poorly designed studies) seems to be more impartial and unbiased.
How do we resolve this disagreement? Comments? CJ ( talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is my suggested compromise : "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. In most cases, evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice. However, in another overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”. It is more verbose but it added information from both sides. ottawakungfu ( talk) 21:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ottawakungfu. My understanding of Neutral Point of View is just that - nuetral. Not negative. Not positive. Just the facts, Ma'am. Am I wrong? It appears to me the the current wording is negative, not neutral. The wording that Ottawakungfu has suggested is more neutral (though I would say "due to the low quality of the design of the research". Few of them would qualify as "clinical trials".) The current wording makes it sound as if there have been lots of clinical trials, but they have not shown any quality conclusions. The fact is there have been only a few clinical trials. Some have shown strong high quality conclusions, but there have not been ENOUGH of them to say that their conclusions are definitive.
I have also read the MEDRS at length, and as far as I can tell, the statements that we are trying to make are completely within those guidelines. We have sources and more sources which fit into the MEDRS definition of reliable source. Published in fully qualified peer reviewed medical journals. These studies report positive benefits, more reliable than anectodal evidence and case studies, but limited in their generalizability because of the difficulties in establishing double blind protocols with behavioral therapies. That does not mean that they are not valid, nor that they cannot draw any conclusions. What it means is that the conclusions they draw is limited to the specific environment, with the specific population, with a limited scope.
Allow me to give a specific example. New England Journal of Medicine. (N Engl J Med 2010;363:743-54.) A Randomized Trial of Tai Chi for Fibromyalgia by Chenchen Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Christopher H. Schmid, Ph.D., Ramel Rones, B.S., Robert Kalish, M.D., Janeth Yinh, M.D., Don L. Goldenberg, M.D., Yoojin Lee, M.S., and Timothy McAlindon, M.D., M.P.H.. Of the 66 randomly assigned patients, the 33 in the tai chi group had clinically important improvements in the FIQ total score and quality of life. Mean (±SD)baseline and 12-week FIQ scores for the tai chi group were 62.9±15.5 and 35.1±18.8,respectively, versus 68.0±11 and 58.6±17.6, respectively, for the control group (change from baseline in the tai chi group vs. change from baseline in the control group,−18.4 points; P<0.001). The corresponding SF-36 physical-component scores were 28.5±8.4 and 37.0±10.5 for the tai chi/qigong group versus 28.0±7.8 and 29.4±7.4 for the control group (between-group difference, 7.1 points; P = 0.001), and the mental component scores were 42.6±12.2 and 50.3±10.2 for the tai chi group versus 37.8±10.5 and 39.4±11.9 for the control group (between-group difference, 6.1 points; P = 0.03). Improvements were maintained at 24 weeks (between-group difference in the FIQ score, −18.3 points; P<0.001). No adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Tai chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment for fibromyalgia and merits long-term study in larger study populations
Another example. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. Investigators: Maria B. Ospina, B.Sc., M.Sc.; Kenneth Bond, B.Ed., M.A.; Mohammad Karkhaneh, M.D.;Lisa Tjosvold, B.A., M.L.I.S.;Ben Vandermeer, M.Sc.;Yuanyuan Liang, Ph.D.; Liza Bialy, B.Sc.; Nicola Hooton, B.Sc., M.P.H.; Nina Buscemi, Ph.D.; Donna M. Dryden, Ph.D. Terry P. Klassen, M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.C. Research conducted by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0023). The report is filled with descriptions of the poor methodologies used by research and non-significant results for the 813 studies included in the meta-analysis, but they specifically pointed out one particular positive outcome: A few statistically significant results favoring meditation practices were found: both TM® (transcendental meditation) versus PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), and Qi Gong versus WL (waiting list) for DBP (diastolic blood pressure) and SBP (systolic blood pressure), Zen Buddhist meditation versus blood pressure checks for DBP, and Yoga versus HE (health education) to reduce stress. The positive results from these meta-analyses need to be interpreted with caution, as biases, such as expectancy bias, cannot be excluded.
Note that they said "interpreted with caution", not "there was no positive results".
When a study has a positive outcome, a conclusion can be drawn. But one or two studies is not enough to definitively say that Tai Chi/Qigong IS useful in a wide variety of circumstances, just that it MAY BE useful. Does this mean that we should report (1) "there is no evidence that Tai Chi/Qigong is helpful"? Does this mean that we should report (2) "Tai Chi/Qigong is an effective treatment"? I don't think either one of those statements fits in the NPOV or MEDRS as I understand them. I believe that the proper thing to do would be to report (3) "A positive outcome was reported, and Tai Chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment, but the topic merits long term study in larger study populations." Wouldn't anything else is a misrepresentation? What am I missing about NPOV or MEDRS which would warrant the first statement rather than the third? I'm not trying to be difficult. I truly want to understand what I am missing. CJ ( talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
CJ ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. OR Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that many of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, but in most cases, strong evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the inadequate design of the existing research. A systematic review concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
I look forward to hearing from you and anyone else who wishes to share their opinion. If we can't come to some kind of agreement on this, then perhaps it is time to ask some other editors. Isn't there a request for comments process we can use to help us work through this impasse? CJ ( talk) 13:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
ob·serve [uhb-zurv] Show IPA verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing. 1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street. 2. to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question. 3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse. 4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be. 5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet. NatHealth1 ( talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I don't get your shorthand. Are you saying you don't find the Jahnke study helpful nor interesting- (if so be specific on what is not helpful and "interesting" is subjective and has no place here) or do you not get the definition of "observe," because you stated you have a problem with its use in this context? You have stated a concern with its use, yet you won't acknowledge a dictionary's definition. Have you read Jahnke's study- yes or no? NatHealth1 ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The effectiveness of qigong has been studied in various indications including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, and pain control. A 2011 review of randomized controlled trials (that did not evaluate the quality of the RCTs) found that qigong practice has some benefits(cite Jahnke), but an overview of systematic reviews published later in 2011 found that some published reviews were themselves of poor quality, that any claim for “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.(cite Lee)
Jahnke should not be used in the lead, and certainly not as discussed above. It does not do any due diligence about the quality of studies it reviews, which goes against the basics of how a systematic review should be run (see, for example, the PRISMA criteria); higher quality studies (read: more reliable sources) say that no conclusion can be reached due to the poor quality of the trials done. We have multiple higher quality reviews than Jahnke, there is no reason to use it in the lead, and certainly not as some counterweight to higher quality sources. I see numerous editors above objecting to changes to the subvert the now neutral sentence in the lead, and no consensus to change it. Yobol ( talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Jytdog,et al and find that CJ and the Professor have provided enough detailed explanations of their suggested revisions to warrant a more positive opening paragraph. Those whom disagree, I respectfully ask why you chose Qigong as your platform to edit on Wikipedia. What is your goal, intent for this listing, and why Qigong? It may help us understand, so that we can better collaborate and update this. Please advise. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
JytdogI invite you to tone down your assumptions on whom you are jousting with as these comments are not adding to our discussion, but distracting. I don't need to defend CJ, as "they" can do that themselves, and I am very familiar with medical literature and the use of "indications" in this sentence is clumsy. Again, very interested on why you and your coterie are interested in Qigong on Wikipedia. NatHealth1 ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog I hear you and agree with "as a complement." I don't believe anyone here has been implying otherwise. NatHealth1 ( talk) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's try for consensus on something clean that strictly uses the systematic reviews and overview of systematic reviews as sources. Draft text:
Note that every condition listed corresponds to a referenced systematic review, and three recently published reviews need to be added: Lauche et al. 2013 concerning fibromyalgia, Wang et al. 2013 concerning anxiety, depression, and well-being, and Oh et al. 2013 concerning depression. All reviews address RCTs that report positive effects, and all report that primary data are of poor quality, typically because of small sample sizes and lack of proper control group. Also note, all systematic reviews (except the two on hypertension) are considered to be of poor quality based on the 2011 overview of systematic reviews, and of course systematic reviews since 2011 were not evaluated. The conclusion quotes come from this overview, and are representative of the conclusions of all the reviews. TheProfessor ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add that while the Professor was writing that, I was working on a different one, so allow me to add it in case it would be more acceptable to everyone:
It is more wordy, but specific enough to balance both sides of the issue and is not negatively biased as the original wording. If we don't want to include all that, I'm happy to go back to a general statement that many studies show some positive benefits without citation and put the details in the more detailed section, but Jytdog, Yobol, and Roxy the Dog may require the more specific statements that can be sourced from strongly supported NIH and PubMed articles. Alternatively, we can simply take out the negatively biased statement with a vague - "More information on the research-based evidence can be found in the Qigong Health Research section."
Well? What do we think? Can we agree on this? If not, please provide ALTERNATIVE wording, don't just criticize the change. I believe we need to compromise on this issue, and I am sure that we can find a way to do that. CJ ( talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
{moved by CJ from next section because the issue was actually here, in the previous section} The comment was struck out earlier. It was so confusing I really didn't know who said what, which is why I started the next section. CJ ( talk) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the organized opinion gathering straw poll to another section below in an attempt to focus solely on the question at hand. I would remind everyone not to WP:GAME, or interpret the guidelines for medical sources too narrowly on order to fit with your own opinions of the topic. Wikipedia:MEDRS are the guidelines, and if they say sources such as PubMed, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and others are verifiable and acceptable, it is not appropriate to add additional layers of requirement. It is not proper to suppress valid and valuable information because you are personally opposed to it. My understanding is that one should ADD information to provide balance in an article, not delete. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and no one has the right to treat Wikipedia articles as their personal property, squelshing additions based on capricious and specious arguements that go far beyond the intention of the guidelines for medical sources.
I would also ask that everyone refrain from personal attacks, bullying behavior, attempts to intimidate, or unfounded accusations against particular people because you don't agree with them. If you wish to make your opinion known in the straw poll, please look to the new section I have created for ONLY opinions on the text choices. Continue your discussions, if necessary, in this section. Thank you. CJ ( talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that you or anyone else did these things. I'm simply asking everyone to refrain from doing them. CJ ( talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please provide your opinion:
Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
Developmentalist:No, NIH Suggests there is strong evidence for certain benefits Developmentalist ( talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)
Developmentalist: No, I think it should state that there is strong evidence for certain conditions see NIH's page on Qigong. Developmentalist ( talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
Developmentalist: No, many quality trials have shown positive results. Janhke et. al's review included 66 RCT's.
Developmentalist (
talk)
02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".
Developmentalist:Yes
Please add alternative wording suggestions here:
New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".
Developmentalist:Yes, If we could include "NIH has suggested that there is strong evidence that Qigong (and Taiji) can have positive effects for bone health, cardiopulmonary fitness, balance, and quality of life" Developmentalist ( talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above, only below. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that.
CJ (
talk)
15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Further Discussion Below
As this thread is moot in any case, I suggest it be closed and hatted, discussion should perhaps be aimed at Jytdog's idea, that CJ work on a way to get her medical theories into the body of the article, without the unevidenced claims that she (understandably) wants to make. You must remember that according to WP:MOS the lede should as far as possible be a precis of the body text of the article. To repeat myself, I can't see how you can go further than "Exercise is good for you." Sorry, I am. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
(moved from top of section so that section organization is maintained. This was originally at the top.) CJ ( talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC) There so many conflicts in the last section that I am confused. Jytdog, for example, asked me for sources for qigong impact on anxiety when that was someone else's suggestion, not mine. Can we agree to refrain from criticisms and justifications and simply, one right after another, post alternative wording so that people can comment on which one(s) they would support? I think we've all heard all the arguments many times, and I'd like to bring this impasse to a close or ask for dispute resolution.
Developmentalist You can find an NIH research spotlight here http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/071910.htm Also, NIH has produced videos on Taiji and Qigong which it maintains are safe and effective for promoting health and wellness. The director of NCCAM introduces the videos found at this link http://nccam.nih.gov/video/taichiDVD If there were not some consensus that Taiji and Qigong were beneficial, NIH would not be promoting them and teaching people how to do it. Of the many researchers and clinicians that I know working in this area, consensus is that there is strong evidence for certain benefits, mentioned in the report above, and emerging evidence in other areas where more research is needed. Developmentalist ( talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to pick up the thread concerning wordsmithing a consensus lead. A few details: First, I proposed changing the phrase Medical research on qigong is increasing" to scientific interest in qigong is growing", to try to satisfy Jytdog's concerns, and based on the Lee et al. 2011 Overview of Systematic Reviews, which states "All of the systematic reviews have been published recently which indicates that the scientific interest in qigong is growing", meant to be faithful to the source, not promotional. I suggest another try with wording like "A growing body of medical research focuses on qigong, including clinical trials concerning...". The list corresponds to conditions covered by systematic reviews, such that one or more reviews can readily be cited for each condition. I would not favor having no specifics of what was studied like the current "various medical conditions". I prefer the more informative version (New Text#3 above, with these tweaks), I'm willing to compromise to New Text#4 above for now, and revisit depending on any rewrites to the medical section. TheProfessor ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not a big tagger, but I want to point out that as I have discussed with User:Cjrhoads on her talk page, I believe she has a clear COI here. I also pointed out to User:NatHealth1 that the account fits the definition of WP:SPA. Jytdog ( talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog I'm interested in knowing, since you have years of experience here,if Wikipedia pays or hires individuals to edit pages. NatHealth1 ( talk) 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
the atmosphere that is created from your response to a different opinion than yours, sets the tone. If I appeared to be brazen, it was necessitated by the environment already long established by the coterie. May we now establish a neutral tone and I invite you to lead me to the appropriate wiki section to continue a civilized discourse on proper wiki etiquette. I will follow your example with hopes of rectitude in leadership and an open mind. When we differ, I hope each of us will respectfully consider the other's suggestion before dismissing it entirely. NatHealth1 ( talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I appeal to everybody's humanity to do right by each other. Yes, let's ensure there is no COI or SPA (my impression is that not the real problem here); let's give the newbies a real chance to do some editing with some proper mentoring and encouragement; let's keep the discussion on track; and let's set a truly civil and respectful tone. For everybody's sake let's clean up the discussion - move mentoring and side discussion to userpages or other appropriate threads, etc. I appreciate CJ's enthusiasm and sincerity, and I encourage slowing down, listening, learning, and getting good experience editing before diving so far into controversy. I'm exhausted by the pace and continued tense/challenging atmosphere, and would like to do my part to create a collaborative (and frankly more fun and creative) atmosphere. I have learned a lot, and commit to do my best to keep my part of the discussion concise, cogent, and supportive. TheProfessor ( talk) 10:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
( Jytdog Can I please strike this out again?) Or could you please clean it up so that it is clearer that this is not longer the active straw poll? Thank you CJ ( talk) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.
New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)
New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.
New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".
Please add alternative wording suggestions here:
New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".
Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above. Discussion in other sections only, please. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that. CJ ( talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC) (Moved to new section by CJ ( talk) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC))
:Would you please clarify where in the article you intend this proposed content to go? Yobol has indicated above that he will not support a laundry list in the lead. I actually thought we were working on a lead for the Health section. I cannot "vote" on this unless I know where it will go.
Jytdog (
talk)
13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
NatHealth1 ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Ottawakungfu can you please explain why you want to replace "clinical research" with "research"? thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
user:Developmentalist in your note you want to include reference to Tai Chi. My sense is that we do not want to add content about Tai Chi to this article, as right now there is a separate Tai chi article and it seems unwise to start blending them; I don't want to get into a qigong vs tai chi battle; this is already complicated enough. Is that OK? Jytdog ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Cjrhoads, With respect to moving or changing other users' comments, there is a very limited repertoire of what is allowed - please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Please note that it says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have objected, as has Roxy, saying "please." In this evening's refactoring, done over my objections and Roxy's, you also left comments of mine that I have struck, unstruck. If you edit any of my comments again, in any way, I will bring you to ANI and you will not have a leg to stand on. I do not like drama boards but this is a bright line - stop messing with my comments. Jytdog ( talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's another option. Since Mayo Clinic was mentioned favorably, if what TheProfessor is suggesting is not acceptable, then here's another option
According to the Mayo Clinic, meditation activities such as Qigong might be useful for medical conditions, especially those that may be worsened by stress. They note that while a growing body of scientific research supports the health benefits, some researchers believe it's not yet possible to draw conclusions about the possible benefits of meditation. With that in mind, they suggest that Qigong and other forms of meditation may help such conditions as Allergies, Anxiety disorders, Asthma, Binge eating, Cancer, Depression, Fatigue, Heart disease, High blood pressure, Pain, Sleep problems, and Substance abuse.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/meditation/art-20045858
What would everyone think about that one? CJ ( talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Since MEDRS says Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, Mayo Clinic, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources in themselves, and can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly, I thought it would be good for just an introductory area. Certainly, we could reference the other literature in a more detailed section. You had mentioned in an earlier discussion that no one had referenced Mayo Clinic, and I got the impression that you thought that would be a good source. Obviously I was wrong. Again, I would ask that you make a proposal for the text under discussion; I'm sure you can come up with something that would be good, but still acceptable in my opinion. Please try. Thanks CJ ( talk) 14:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
yeyoung_qigong_origin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Cohen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jahnke_et_al_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Review
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Frantzis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YJM1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wayne
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).