Yoga changes the brain ?

[bobwtfomg]

A freind posted this on fb, is it bad science or just bad science journalism or is there possibly anything to it ?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-yoga-changes-the-brain/

 

[Joey McGee]

a) they are from NCCAM which is universally disdained by skeptical doctors and a helluva lot has been written about the waste of money and political bullcrap that goes on there...

b) they presented evidence at a meeting this isn't a peer-reviewed study

c) this is nothing new

Everything you do changes the brain... big *********** deal! If you pay attention to things the part of your brain that pays attention will change, meditation isn't special. If you use your body in new ways that part of your brain will change. Everything you do that's new and requires effort and movement changes your brain!

This sounds like nothing more than some people trying to get more scientific endorsement of their yogi cult by hitching onto the bandwagon of You Can Change Your Brain! neuroplasticity stuff.

Sure, yoga can be helpful, but normal exercise which includes stretching is just as good. Self driven cognitive therapy works better than just tricking yourself into being calm, and using breathing to relax has nothing to do with yoga.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Sure, yoga can be helpful, but normal exercise which includes stretching is just as good. Self driven cognitive therapy works better than just tricking yourself into being calm, and using breathing to relax has nothing to do with yoga.

.
This has nothing to do with strip mall yoga centers that stretch your back and your finances for little perceptible gain.

It's about the meditative practices associated with traditional Yogic, Buddhist, and Vedic disciplines that HAVE been shown to affect neuroplasticity and behavior in legitimate, peer-reviewed studies.

One of the biggest labs working in this area is Richard Davidson's group at the University of Wisconsin. They've been studying the neural function of Buddhist monks using techniques like EEG and functional MRI and have demonstrated that long-term meditation practice produces significant functional and structural changes in certain parts of the brain. The areas affected are, as expected, the same ones involved in attention and stress disorders. Meditation results in neural activity that is opposite of that shown in people with severe attention deficit and anxiety problems.

End result: when it comes to ADHD and anxiety you may be able to meditate rather than medicate to improve the condition - something that could be of enormous benefit to kids or to people who can't tolerate pharmaceutical treatment for these conditions.

Here's one of the Davidson Lab's core papers on the subject (from a highly regarded, peer-reviewed journal). There's lots of other stuff out there on it. It's a real, documented effect.

And yes, this latest news did come out of NCCAM and yes, they aren't given the highest esteem in the profession. I don't see that as a reason to doubt it in-and-of-itself. There are plenty of other studies that support such findings.

Critical thinking means being critical of things, not automatically dismissive of them. This one's for real.

 

[Joey McGee]

You don't get it. I didn't say meditation didn't work, what I meant was that people use the fact that meditation works as evidence or propaganda for their other questionable practices. When you strip out all of the Buddhist or Vedic or whatever content, you still get the same benefits.

http://www.relaxationresponse.org/steps/

And you can go a step further and strip out the actual practice. You can get the same benefits by actually applying the fundamentals to everyday life, you don't actually have to sit there and contemplate a word or your breath or whatever. People get the same blood pressure and heart benefits of doing Transcendental Meditation by basic education about relaxing themselves, no meditation required! But the TM cult goes around making all of these claims recruiting people...

What I'm saying is that this is probably the same thing, there's nothing special about doing yoga, you could get the same kinds of brain changes by paying better attention doing anything, doing any kind of exercise, any kind of visualization. I don't doubt that they actually got these results, but their goal at NCCAM is to show that "alternative and complementary" modalities work, not to tease out what is actually happening. People think "Oh I should do yoga!" Instead of "there are benefits to paying increased attention and visualizing and exercising!" Maybe there is something special about yoga, but this study isn't going to be the one that teases it out.

Another problem is that most of these researchers and popularizers like Davidson, Goleman, and Kabat-Zinn are insiders, enthusiasts of the traditions, they strive to secularize and apply science to it but at their core they are motivated to legitimize their practice and tradition, not as much get to the heart of the matter of how to improve well-being and attention etc.

Yes the potential "meditation" is huge for the world. The ability to pay attention and function at a higher level taught to children would change the world. It can give people their lives back. But that's exactly why more research is needed and it needs to be separated from any kind of tradition or practice, including the practice of meditation itself, it's about the brain and the human being not some special practice.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

You don't get it. I didn't say meditation didn't work, what I meant was that people use the fact that meditation works as evidence or propaganda for their other questionable practices. When you strip out all of the Buddhist or Vedic or whatever content, you still get the same benefits.

.
OK, I see what you're saying and agree with this 100%.

Keep the science, ditch the woo. All good.

And you can go a step further and strip out the actual practice. You can get the same benefits by actually applying the fundamentals to everyday life, you don't actually have to sit there and contemplate a word or your breath or whatever.

.
This, and what follows, I'm not 100% convinced of.

I say that not because I think the metaphysical beliefs surrounding meditative practice are in any way helpful, but because you've got teachings on meditation out there backed by 3,000 years of experience that shouldn't be pitched on a whim. Meditation techniques have been developed and refined over centuries specifically because they work. I don't see any reason to abandon that wealth of knowledge because it's not "modern" or "scientific" enough. If we can take advantage of all that experience to help people then why not do it?

It just seems that you're looking to reinvent the wheel for the sake of putting it on a different cart that has "SCIENCE!" painted on the side. If traditional practices work for people then let them work and don't complain about it. I'd rather see people getting free meditation lessons from a monk than having some therapist charge them $180 an hour for the exact same thing.

Another problem is that most of these researchers and popularizers like Davidson, Goleman, and Kabat-Zinn are insiders, enthusiasts of the traditions, they strive to secularize and apply science to it but they at their core are motivated to legitimize their practice and tradition, not as much get to the heart of the matter of how to improve well-being and attention etc.

.
I find this rather disingenuous. It smacks of the "climate change scientists are only in it for the money" argument.

Science is science no matter who performs it. If it's done right and passes muster in review then who cares about the authors? The data is what counts, right?

I've never seen any suggestion that these study results were impacted by an author's bias. I doubt you'd be making the same criticisms of a researcher who discovered a new pharma compound and then championed it's use - but that's basically what you're criticizing these folks for.

But that's exactly why more research is needed and it needs to be separated from any kind of tradition or practice, including the practice of meditation itself, it's about the brain and the human being not some special practice.

.
So do you have examples of this in the literature? Are there studies that show some other "modern" practice results in the same benefits?

And that's not rhetorical. If you know of such studies I'd really like to see them.

 

[Senex]

Yoga changes my brain. When I see women in those Yoga pants my brain gets to thinking stuff.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Perhaps Joey should looking into dialectical behavioral therapy, which uses mindfulness techniques as central to the therapeutic process.

 

[Joey McGee]

I say that not because I think the metaphysical beliefs surrounding meditative practice are in any way helpful, but because you've got teachings on meditation out there backed by 3,000 years of experience that shouldn't be pitched on a whim.

The argument from antiquity is really useless, but no one is saying that they should be pitched, just tested and improved and they have been tested and improved, just not well enough. I'll quote wikipedia

More recent reviews have pointed out many of these flaws with the hope of guiding current research into a more fruitful path.[13] More reports assessed that further research needs to be directed towards the theoretical grounding and definition of meditation

Meditation techniques have been developed and refined over centuries specifically because they work. I don't see any reason to abandon that wealth of knowledge because it's not "modern" or "scientific" enough. If we can take advantage of all that experience to help people then why not do it?

I didn't say we shouldn't study these things or that people shouldn't do them. I said we should look and see what's really happening and do away with anything extraneous and be mindful (ha!) that people are usually trying to validate existing systems, not just learn about how to improve the mind.

It just seems that you're looking to reinvent the wheel for the sake of putting it on a different cart that has "SCIENCE!" painted on the side. If traditional practices work for people then let them work and don't complain about it.

No I actually think that Transcendental Meditation and other modalities mislead people and they can get the more benefits and understand their mind in a more accurate way by leaving the past behind, you started out thinking I was claiming meditation is bunk, now you think that I just have bad case of scientism and a chip on my shoulder, what will you think up next?

I'd rather see people getting free meditation lessons from a monk than having some therapist charge them $180 an hour for the exact same thing.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that simple meditation can replace cognitive behavioral therapy, that's insane.

.
I find this rather disingenuous. It smacks of the "climate change scientists are only in it for the money" argument.

Science is science no matter who performs it. If it's done right and passes muster in review then who cares about the authors? The data is what counts, right?

I've never seen any suggestion that these study results were impacted by an author's bias. I doubt you'd be making the same criticisms of a researcher who discovered a new pharma compound and then championed it's use - but that's basically what you're criticizing these folks for.

No, I'm not suggesting that their research is wrong, you misunderstand again. What I am suggesting is exactly what they say themselves, that they were inspired by learning these things and set out to empirically validate the practices, they are more likely to believe that the practices can't be improved upon or made obsolete by better practices because they are devotees and fall into the argument from antiquity myth that this has been developed for thousands of years how could we possibly do that...

So do you have examples of this in the literature? Are there studies that show some other "modern" practice results in the same benefits?

Well Benson proved that you only needed the basic technique to get all of the benefits, with "The Relaxation Response" Basically what I'm saying is what most teachers and scientists say, that you can "meditate" while you are doing an activity like washing the dishes, doing tai chi, listening to music, etc etc, and that diaphragmatic breathing can be done in any situation.

And that's not rhetorical. If you know of such studies I'd really like to see them.

For what? That meditation works because you're changing what you're doing with your attention and breathing? That's part and parcel of the literature on meditation itself. That it's possible to elicit the relaxation response and activate the parasympathetic nervous system without sitting down and closing your eyes and chanting a word or focusing on your breath?

 

[Joey McGee]

Perhaps Joey should looking into dialectical behavioral therapy, which uses mindfulness techniques as central to the therapeutic process.

I actually already know about this. There is a difference between being critical of something and dismissing it outright. Maybe if you actually knew about these issues beyond simply knowing there is evidence for them and consensus amongst the relevant professionals they are helpful you would have recognized what I was actually talking about, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

 

[dlorde]

It's not surprising that achieving expertise in something changes the brain, for example - Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

The argument from antiquity is really useless

.
Well this "argument from antiquity" happens to backed by scientific papers from the last couple of decades so I think we can put some stock in it, eh?

Which begs the question yet again: What, exactly, is it that you're trying to say?

You dump all over published science without providing any evidence (other than your own conclusive remarks) that the science is biased by personal gain. Then you turn right around and point to Herbert Benson who has made himself a millionaire selling his system to the masses.

You claim that your simplified approach is just as good as traditional teaching but when asked to provide references to studies documenting this you evade the question.

You go off on the evils of traditional approaches and the NCCAM but when asked to back up your conclusory remarks you suggest a pop psychology book off of Amazon.

I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this. What I am saying is that traditional approaches have been studied with the latest techniques science can offer and have been found effective.

What you're suggesting may indeed be true, but so far all you've offered as proof is a mass-market self-help paperback written by a cardiologist more than 35 years ago.

Until you can show some real science that says meditation taught by a health care professional is somehow better than meditation taught be a Zen monk you've really go no case. (In fact, it's been suggested that the metaphysical beliefs of the meditator may actually enhance or alter the effects of the meditation.) I don't know of any studies that have been done on meditation guided by lay people. I assume that your forcefulness in making your point means you do know of such studies. Until you can point to some of those studies you have nothing to your argument but a lot of smoke and wind.

I ask again: Do you know of any studies that support your conclusions? Do you have any evidence that the studies done by people like Davidson are biased? What's your scientific basis of saying that meditation alone is better for people than meditation + metaphysics?

Until you stop evading the issue and answer those points your calling other's skepticism into question is more than a little misplaced, eh?

Wanna be a skeptic? Then show us your data. What is the basis for your remarks other than your own personal bias and belief?

 

[Joey McGee]

.
Well this "argument from antiquity" happens to backed by scientific papers from the last couple of decades so I think we can put some stock in it, eh?

I put a lot of stock in meditation, perhaps what I'm saying is a little to "subtle" for you.

Which begs the question yet again: What, exactly, is it that you're trying to say?

a) Meditation works, but it's simply the "relaxation response" and it doesn't give validity to any of the traditions it is associated with. I would never recommend anyone learn "Transcendental Meditation" or blow any of their money on that cult, and the philosophies of Buddhism are hollow and confusing. b) Focusing on your breath and engaging in attention exercises does work, but if you want to calm yourself and improve your attention, you can exercise the same circuits as meditation in a variety of ways.

You dump all over published science without providing any evidence (other than your own conclusive remarks) that the science is biased by personal gain. Then you turn right around and point to Herbert Benson who has made himself a millionaire selling his system to the masses.

You're putting words in my mouth, what I'm saying is that they are validating the systems they learned, not taking it to the next level and seeing what is possible with changing the mind, it's a limited framework. You are just making stuff up in your own head, wasting my time and the time of anyone who is reading this, extremely boring.

You claim that your simplified approach is just as good as traditional teaching but when asked to provide references to studies documenting this you evade the question.

That's exactly what Kabat-Zinn did, stripped the traditional teaching of anything but the function, and I think he proved that. Do you demand hyperlinks?

You go off on the evils of traditional approaches and the NCCAM but when asked to back up your conclusory remarks you suggest a pop psychology book off of Amazon.

Uhm, Transcendental Meditation is a cult and is very dangerous and stupid. I see David Lynch, Paul McCartney and Ringo, Donovan and the like promoting it and there is an effort to teach it to school children. That kind of teaching is dangerous. I also happen to think that Buddhism is pretty stupid. http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2903Itemid=247

I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this. What I am saying is that traditional approaches have been studied with the latest techniques science can offer and have been found effective.

There is no difference between modern and traditional meditation in practice except for the belief systems. What I am saying is people are fooled into following TM and Buddhism etc because they think that if there is validity in the practice, there must be validity in the other stuff, and there isn't. TM claims to be just a technique but it is indeed a recruiting method. All I said is that it's nothing more than eliciting a response in the body, there is nothing special about meditation. And you go off on this bonkers tangent...

What you're suggesting may indeed be true, but so far all you've offered as proof is a mass-market self-help paperback written by a cardiologist more than 35 years ago.

Since you don't even understand what I'm talking about, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have to prove to you.

Until you can show some real science that says meditation taught by a health care professional is somehow better than meditation taught be a Zen monk you've really go no case.

Where am I claiming it is better? This has been a gigantic waste of my time.

(In fact, it's been suggested that the metaphysical beliefs of the meditator may actually enhance or alter the effects of the meditation.)

That sounds like a load of ******. Escpecially from someone who demands evidence of the slightest things...

I don't know of any studies that have been done on meditation guided by lay people. I assume that your forcefulness in making your point means you do know of such studies. Until you can point to some of those studies you have nothing to your argument but a lot of smoke and wind.

Uhm, all of Kabat-Zinn's studies? That's what he did, stripped it of everything and taught it to people.

I ask again: Do you know of any studies that support your conclusions?

You don't even know what I'm talking about!

Do you have any evidence that the studies done by people like Davidson are biased?

That's not what I said... FFS...

What's your scientific basis of saying that meditation alone is better for people than meditation + metaphysics?

What the **** are you talking about?

Until you stop evading the issue and answer those points your calling other's skepticism into question is more than a little misplaced, eh?

Wanna be a skeptic? Then show us your data. What is the basis for your remarks other than your own personal bias and belief?

I am absolutely done wasting time with you man, have fun with your victory dance and celebration in your own mind...

 

[Joey McGee]

If anyone is interested in changing their brain, I'm really enjoying this book called "Brain Changer" which includes a section of 30 suggestions. Got some good reviews.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If anyone is interested in changing their brain, I'm really enjoying this book called "Brain Changer" which includes a section of 30 suggestions. Got some good reviews.

Do you have any primary sources that support your skepticism of the published research?

 

[dlorde]

I seem to recall that daydreaming is an effective form of meditation. My personal favourite has a far longer history than any other known technique, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all derive from it - fire-gazing: sitting in front of, and maintaining, a log fire, with or without good company and/or alcohol.