Talk:Transcendental Meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yoga  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Extremely prejudiced editor[edit]

Maharishi Effect theory deleted -- The theory is proposed by Maharishi, who has a degree in physics, and by other widely published physicists. It is rationally based on theories of physics, and it is un-ethical to deliberately hide the proposal from the public, even if you don't agree with it, but the extremist editors here consistently try to stifle the fact that the theory is based on a rational understanding of physics, and instead call it 'paranormal'. It is not paranormal, there are fields (or rather, oceans) at the basis of existence that every credible physicist recognizes. Research has been published in credible peer-reviewed journals in which this field-effect theory has been proposed. The editors here are constantly trying to mis-inform the public about these theories, and respond with insults and inappropriate deletions on a regular basis. This extreme prejudice is putting Wikipedia into complete dis-repute, and calls into question the value of this encyclopedia, which is now being used to promote an extremist and prejudiced agenda, which is largely just personal opinion. The fact that it was all taken out because one sentence, mentioning Maharishi's qualifications in physics, shows an extreme and aggressive prejudice and propaganda by the editors, and this person should be taken to task by Wikipedia. This type of extremism has no place on Wikipedia. Everything I could was referenced to credible sources. You cannot delete the whole thing. You can only put a mark where something needs to be referenced, and I will put the reference in there. Please re-insert the text, and put in 'needs citation' on sentences that need them, If any sentences are not backed up with credible sources I will delete the sentence, but please use "needs citation" instead of vandalizing the whole paragraph. Please state which specific parts need citations. Please don't tell me the fact that Maharishi has a degree in physics is not relevant when it is necessary to point such facts out in what is clearly a theory based on the findings of modern physics, especially when the editors sole goal is to mis-inform the public on what the theory is. The reason that they do not want the public to read about this theory, is that it is a completely rational theory. See my explanation below that was deleted. You are making a sham of Wikipedia and mis-informing the public about the theory and its roots. This below is not perfect, but completely vandalizing every part of it by deleting it all is unacceptable. Use the 'needs citation' method only.

Here is my insert below, that was deleted:

The theory: Abstract fields that most physicists believe are fundamental to existence [1], are the basis of the theory of the Maharishi Effect. The theory being that the mind, brain, and body, are not separate from these transcendental foundational fields, of which physical matter is widely accepted to be an epiphenomenon [2]. The notion is that there are effects similar to those seen in superconductors, that can be created in the abstract underlying fields, particularly at the level of the Unified Field of physics, and near or below Planck-scale quantum levels. The interaction of the human brain and the quantum fields is a theory held by a number of highly regarded physicists, such as Professor Emeritus of Oxford University, Sir Roger Penrose, and many other respected physicists[3] have also suggested a link between human consciousness and the sub-plank-scales, coining the term "Quantum Consciousness" to refer to this non-classical interaction, in which human thought is inter-dependent with an unbounded quantum field. Thus the theory of the Maharishi Effect clearly associates with widely accepted theories of modern physics. The theory was developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who gained a degree in physics in the 1940s (studying at the encouragement of his guru, the Shankara Charya of Jyotir Math - similar to a Pope figure-head for India), and with other widely published physicists around the world. ___________________________________________________________

Content[edit]

Have removed "A 2007 systematic review found that transcendental meditation was associated with a significant reduction in blood pressure.[4]" as we have a better source on the topic. Specifically the 2013 statement by the AHA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#4.7.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ Rainforth, MV; Schneider, RH; Nidich, SI; Gaylord-King, C; Salerno, JW; Anderson, JW (December 2007). "Stress reduction programs in patients with elevated blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.". Current hypertension reports 9 (6): 520–8. doi:10.1007/s11906-007-0094-3. PMID 18350109. 

WP:MEDRS[edit]

Removed:

PMID 17764203 - Fails WP:MEDDATE

PMID 16437509 - This Cochrane review does not support what is being written. The study analyzed TM with two other relaxation techniques. The authors found that "There was no differential effect between the 3 treatments in reducing anxiety" and this is being used to make the claim that it's is not possible to say if TM has any effects on health

PMID 15480084 - Fails WP:MEDDATE

ACS statement - Fails WP:MEDDATE

All statements dealing with meditation in general belong there, not here.

"I hate Maharishi University of Management" is not a valid argument for removing WP:MEDRS sources.

-A1candidate (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE is not to be applied this rigidly. Much discussion has gone into the current wording. Cochrane review states "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc James Cochrane review is only for anxiety disorders, not for all ailments. WP:MEDDATE applies because we have newer sources. -A1candidate (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes and the high quality newer sources also say the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
TM lowers BP per AHA -A1candidate (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The evidence is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not AHA's position. The evidence is clear -A1candidate (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
We could have another RfC to gather wider input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Cochrane review is only for anxiety disorders, not for all diseases in general. -A1candidate (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And this one on CVD [1] and this one this one for well being [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lowering BP is not the same as preventing CVD. -A1candidate (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But the whole point of lowering BP is to prevent cardiovascular disease. If a treatment lowers BP but does not prevent cardiovascular disease, then it's not really much good, is it? The point isn't to treat a number on the sphygmomanometer, but to prevent actual disease. MastCell Talk 01:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
See surrogate endpoint. High BP affects other diseases including kidney failure. -A1candidate (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm familiar with surrogate endpoints. Hypertensive renal disease is a form of cardiovascular disease, so I'm not sure what your point is. MastCell Talk 01:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Chronic kidney disease is not a form of cardiovascular disease. Lowering BP helps patients with CKD. -A1candidate 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what the AHA report says "Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B), other meditation techniques (Class III, Level of Evidence C), yoga (Class III, Level of Evidence C), other relaxation therapies (Class III, Level of Evidence B), and biofeedback approaches (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B) generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy." And "The writing group conferred to TM a Class IIB, Level of Evidence B recommendation in regard to BP-lowering efficacy." which means "recommendation's usefulness/efficacy less well established. Greater conflicting evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Modest" applies to therapies with Level of Evidence B (e.g. TM). "No consistent evidence" applies to therapies with Level of Evidence C (e.g. all other meditation techniques ) -A1candidate (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That it is not possible to say if TM has an effect on health is a fair summary of the highest-quality reviews. The AHA statement is a notable outlier though. The authors of the 2014 AHRQ review did say in their answers to comments that a systematic review considering biological markers of stress is needed. It is possible that mantra meditation works more directly on the body than the mind. This would resolve the inconsistency between some of these findings; however, a hypothesis like this must be directly tested, not just invoked as an ad-hoc explanation. At the moment, looking at all the highest-quality sources together, the evidence is unclear and contradictory. On the other hand, here is where I do agree with you: some of these older sources make statements about the poor quality of meditation research in general, not just TM research. Recent reviews are not as critical of methodology as the older ones. You might find support for updating some of these statements about the poor quality of research. Vesal (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding quality, the 2014 AHRQ review looked at 7 studies on TM. Three had low risk for bias, 2 had medium risk, and 2 had high risk. That means that only 2 of the 7 studies could be considered poor quality. Also, in cardio section of the 2007 AHRQ review, the two highest quality studies of the 27 that were included were on TM.(p. 108) Schneider 1995 and Schneider 2005 were deemed high quality. The 2006 Cochrane review is being used to support the statement about quality, but the one study that met their inclusion criteria was said to be "moderate" quality. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
2006 Cochrane review concludes "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders."
This supports this part of the sentence "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The 2014 Cochrane review found "The included trials were small, short term (three months) and at risk of bias." and "Due to the limited evidence to date, we could draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. There was considerable heterogeneity between trials and the included studies were small, short term and at overall serious risk of bias." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Those sources are for anxiety disorders and CVD only, not for all conditions. -A1candidate 02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc James. I was referring to the 2014 AHRQ review. You quoted the 2014 Cochrane review. The TM article says that the 2014 AHRQ review found that the quality of TM research was poor. However, the review found that 3 were high quality, 2 were medium quality, and 2 were low quality. (By the way, the 2014 Cochrane review inexplicably excluded all of the NIH-funded research on TM. These are the strongest studies on TM and have been characterized as being high quality by AHRQ. These studies used an attention control, and the review explicitly states their intention to include studies that use an attention control.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Last statement on the AHA Statement[edit]

I noticed the revert to MastCell's version, which I guess is normally an excellent idea... I'm not really interested in a big fight over this, so I'm just going to say what I think is wrong with the treatment of the AHA statement, and since I doubt you trust me to be neutral, please just ask any good editor that you trust to consider this from a basic sourcing perspective:

  • We quote the authors from their conclusion and then from an included figure in the introduction, as if these were the words of the authors themselves.
  • We use the word "meaning" as if these are definitions of Class IIb, when they are actually writing recommendations. Sparaig2 was on about this for a long time, and even received a response from the lead author saying we misrepresent them, but you really don't need to ask the authors about this. It is plain from just looking at original AHA statement that the committee could have used wordings from any of the three recommended formulations to write their conclusion, and they chose to use only the first.

At the very least, please acknowledge that these are not definitions of class IIB. These are "suggested phrases for writing a recommendation". If we must include the third one, although the authors themselves did not use it in the body of the article, we should at least not imply that the authors did write this. Vesal (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MastCell added this text. Lets allow him to comment. It has been in the article a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vesal: I do see your point, although I don't think we're "misrepresenting" the paper by describing the definition of Class IIB evidence. I guess I don't feel that strongly. If you think it's better to omit the Class IIB definition and just go with the "may be considered" wording, I can live with that.

I'm actually much more concerned that we're misrepresenting the AHA position more globally. There seems to be an effort to make it sound like the AHA endorsed TM on some level. In fact, the paper touches on many different alternative measures to lower BP. And TM is not anywhere near the top of the list in their recommendations. They write:

The writing group endorses that most individuals should start with aerobic or resistance exercise (alone or together) as the first alternative approach unless contraindicated or they are unwilling or unable to exercise... A different or additional alternative modality may be used if BP proves unresponsive, if further treatment is needed to achieve goals, or if there is a lack of adherence to exercise. Among the approaches, it is the opinion of the writing group to next consider the use of device-guided breathing or isometric handgrip exercise. These modalities are recommended with a higher priority in the order of preference over the remaining options on the basis of the larger weight of evidence supporting their BP-lowering efficacy or their greater practicality to use in the real-world setting compared with the other techniques with a Class IIB recommendation (ie, TM and biofeedback). ([3])

So let's be clear: the AHA recommends that if you're going to use an alternative approach, then you should use aerobic or resistance exercise. If that doesn't work, then the next step would be to try device-guided breathing or isometric handgrip exercises. They are very clear that these are the best alternative interventions, because they have the best evidence. Then, if these don't work, you could consider less well-supported or less practical approaches like TM.

We don't reflect these conclusions at all in our article. We basically make it sound like the AHA endorses TM as an effective treatment for hypertension. What they are actually saying is much less promotional and more nuanced—namely, that among alternative approaches to hypertension, there are much better options than TM, although TM is not necessarily worthless. I understand how we've gotten here—after all, TM is a proprietary product sold by a massive organization with a well-funded PR and advertising arm, whereas exercise is just... exercise. No one is flocking to Wikipedia to sell it. But still, if we're going to use the AHA paper then I think it's fair to place TM in the context in which it appears in the paper. I'll take a shot at it. MastCell Talk 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We should say "TM has been found to lower BP (AHA) but its effect on preventing CVD remains unclear (Cochrane)". -A1candidate 01:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not sure that is accurate—it overstates the strength of the AHA's recommendation. MastCell Talk 01:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
AHA authors explained their recommendation in review article PMID 25164965: "Transcendental Meditation was found to modestly lower BP (class IIB recommendation, level of evidence B)." They did not state that the evidence is unclear or unknown. -A1candidate 02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes happy with those changes.[4] It places there recommendations in context. Definition of classIIB level B is "recommendation's usefulness/efficacy less well established" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict

I have no problem with the changes Doc James references above which add relatively obvious context. Exercise for example, is an obvious first line of response to cardiovascular issues first, because it is immediate to human beings and movement and second because of the long history of exercise/ movement and research. However, there would never be a reason to use a review that references exercise in a TM article unless that review also could be used to reference TM which this review does? Sounds as if there is criticism for not having more content on exercise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC))
The next step would be to delete "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health" and add "It is unclear of TM has any effect on preventing diseases". -A1candidate 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell, I believe this is now accurate and a much better representation of the source and required background context. This point about exercise actually couldn't be made often enough, and not just here. It is good to know that meditation, at least in the mindfulness case, is superior to behavioral placebos, but nowadays you end up believing that if I you have say 30 minutes after work to take care of yourself, it would be better to sit on a cushion than to go out for a gentle run. There is no evidence that any meditation therapy is superior to physical exercise. Talking about next steps, I'd much rather see a similar level of MEDRS attention being brought to other health claims made by psychologists, such as optimism, than for the lead of this article to be watered down. Maybe a few older reviews could be removed, or we may state that the quality of trials have improved, based on more recent reviews, but the overall conclusion essentially remains the same. Vesal (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vesal: Hah! If you want to take on the positive-psychology articles, I'm game. I did some work on critical positivity ratio, which is one of the classic Emperor's-new-clothes moments which seem all too common in that field. Short of getting James Coyne to edit Wikipedia, though, it will be an uphill slog. Probably a discussion for another venue, of course. MastCell Talk 02:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

2008 meta-analysis[edit]

I added this meta-analysis from 2008 which states that "The regular practice of Transcendental Meditation may have the potential to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure by ∼4.7 and 3.2 mm Hg, respectively. These are clinically meaningful changes." A1candidate, however, removed it, saying it fails WP:MEDDATE. In the opinion of other editors, would it be appropriate to include it as a source? Everymorning talk 21:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No as there are better sources on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The source was removed because it fails WP:MEDDATE and we have newer reviews on the same topic. User:Everymorning, I've realised that the 2008 review had been cited by AHA in their 2013 review, so we could keep the statement but use the AHA's 2013 review as a source. A1candidate 02:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This article violates scientific consensus[edit]

According to review article PMID 25644320, "The available evidence supports several approaches including Transcendental Meditation" in managing high blood pressure. -A1candidate 15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Blood pressure is a surrogate marker and we discuss it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Both surrogate markers and physiological effects need to be mentioned. -A1candidate 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Which we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Lede section alleges that "It is not possible to say if it has any effect on health". So a change in BP is not a physiological health effect? -A1candidate 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a surrogate marker. Here is a good read [5]. Health effects are less heart attacks, less strokes, longer life, less diabetes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is also a physiological effect and is relevant from a physiological point of study. Less heart attacks and less strokes are health outcomes. -A1candidate 15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why we can't discuss physiological effects as well, as long as we have a source for it. Wikipedia shouldn't be about censoring good information. When readers find good information elsewhere but find that it's lacking on Wikipedia, they go elsewhere and Wikipedia becomes further discredited in their mind. Jimmy Wales mentioned this in respect to this very article on his talk page recently. LesVegas (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We state "A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association said: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP [blood pressure]" and that TM could be considered as a treatment for hypertension, although other interventions such as exercise and device-guided breathing were felt to be more effective and better supported by clinical evidence." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This contradicts the lede, which claims "It is not possible to say if it has any effect on health". The lede violates AHA consensus. -A1candidate 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead should summarize the conclusions of all high-quality reviews. It must also take into account the conclusion of the Cochrane review on cardiovascular disease (overall serious risk of bias) and the AHRQ review on psychological health. Maybe a compromise is possible, but you cannot push this source above all others. Vesal (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I have always been in favor of using the Cochrane reviews, but PMID 16437509 does not support the text in the lede. -A1candidate 13:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Studies by Michaels and Pagano[edit]

I see that these studies have been added to the research section of the article. When this addition was first proposed in 2013, I responded to the suggestion by outlining a number of issues.[6] These issues include:

  • The study by Michaels wasn't an attempt to replicate, since Wallace didn't look at biochemical markers.
  • There are perhaps a dozen studies of biochemical markers, many from the lab of Archie Wilson at UC Irvine, a number of which explicitly state their conclusion differs from Michaels.
  • In a 1983 book chapter, Pagano looked at his 1976 study in the context of subsequent studies and stated that the results in his 1976 study were "atypical."
  • Michaels published a study in 1979 that again found similarities between TM and relaxation but also found that TM meditators responded differently to acute stress: "The data do not support the hypothesis that TM induces a unique state characterized by decreased sympathetic activity or release from stress, but do suggest that meditators may be less responsive to an acute stress."
  • We should be using research reviews rather than individual studies, per WP:MEDRS.
  • A comprehensive review of the literature on TM and EEG that looks at meditation and sleep and that also touches on biochemical markers can be found here.[7] It also briefly touches on biochemical markers. EMP (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide a longer and more contextualized quote for the 1983 book chapter in which Pagano dismissed his prior results as "atypical"? It's not that I don't trust you personally, but we've certainly had issues in this topic area in general with the misrepresentation of medical sources. I will try to get ahold of the book myself to verify it, but even the most thoroughly stocked university medical library doesn't typically carry low-profile textbooks from 1983. I'm impressed you have access to it - if you're able to email me a page scan then that would be very helpful. MastCell Talk 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here’s a longer quotation that gives a fuller context: “The amount of Stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 EEG activity that occurs during TM obviously depends on many factors such as how tired the meditator is at the time of meditation, how conducive the environment is to sleep, and time of day when meditating. To date, the research shows the following. Younger, Adriance, and Berger (1975) have reported that advanced meditators spent 41% of their meditations in Sleep Stages 1 and 2. On the other hand, Hebert and Lehmann (1977) reported only 10% Stage 1, and no Stage 2, 3, or 4 activity. In a recent study (Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, & Hlastala, 1980), we found long-term TM meditators showed 21% Stage 1, only 1.6% Stage 2, and no Stage 3 and 4 activity. Based on these results, the rather high incidence of Stage 3 and 4 activity reported in our initial experiment seems atypical. From a Sleep Stage analysis it seems most accurate to summarize the current state of research as indicating that there are many states of consciousness that occur during TM, the most common EEG stages being Stage W, 1 and 2, respectively. Several additional investigators of TM and other meditation techniques have also emphasized the unusual predominance of "nondescending theta" states, traditionally called Stage 1 sleep, or drowsiness, that occur during meditation (Elson, Hauri, & Cunis, 1977; Fenwick, Donaldson, Gillis, Bushman, Fenton, Perry, Tilsey, & Serafinowicz, 1977; Tebecis, 1975).” EMP (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are we using a bunch of 1970s and 1980s studies? We should be using recent secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Because these studies appear to be notable. -A1candidate 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@A1candidate: The most problematic text here is the following: “A second 1976 study of five subjects found that TM practitioners spent much of their meditation time napping rather than in the unique "wakeful hypometabolic state" described by Wallace.[81]“ This is clearly a low quality finding (n=5) and acknowledged later by its author to be atypical. For these reasons, and in the light of Doc James’ comment on the use of old primary studies, would you object to its removal? EMP (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the only content that satisfies WP:MEDRS is the AHA and Cochrane reviews. All other papers in the health effects section should either be removed or, if notable, moved to the history section. -A1candidate 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
EMP, the Wallace study looked at oxygen consumption in nine subjects and is apparently viewed as a foundational piece of research by the TM movement. The follow-up study looked at five patients and you dismiss it as "clearly a low quality finding", solely on the basis of sample size. I'm not aware of any categorical difference in scientific value between studies where n=5 and those where n=9. I also think you're misrepresenting the "atypical" comment to imply that the negative findings should be disregarded. Your more complete quote indicates that the authors continue to believe that TM is physiologically consistent with drowsiness or sleep, although in perhaps in a different distribution of sleep stages than their initial paper reported. MastCell Talk 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In the paragraph following the one I have quoted, Pagano says that Stage 1 in TM is different from drowsiness: "Since the EEG is a relatively crude measure, it is possible that when the subject manifests Stage 1 or 2 activity during meditation, he or she is not in the same central nervous system (CNS) states as when these stages are identified during ordinary sleep. It is a well-known phenomenon that a tone or stimulus presented during "ordinary" Stage 1 EEG often elicits a short burst of alpha activity (the alpha arousal response), and that during Stage 2 it elicits a K-complex. We reasoned that if the states of meditation and napping are, in fact, different even if the sleepstage classifications were identical, the EEG response to tone probe stimuli might distinguish such a difference. In order to test this possibility we collected tone-response data that were not reported in our original Science article. A 45-db, 600-Hz tone of 0.5-sec duration was presented during each of the meditation and nap sessions, using a randomized interstimulus interval of 1 ± .25 minutes. The results of the response rate to tone presentations (percentage of probes eliciting an alpha arousal or a K-complex) indicated no significant difference between napping and meditation when subjects exhibited Stage 2 EEG sleep (see Table 2). However, there was a significant difference (p .02) between napping and meditation during Stage 1, with subjects responding more often during napping. These results suggest that when the TM meditator is in Stage 2 sleep during meditation, this probably reflects a normal sleep state. On the other hand, when Stage 1 activity is present during meditation, the CNS state appears to be other than that during ordinary drowsiness. Schuman (1980) reviews research suggesting that Stage 1 EEG during meditation may reflect a "freezing of the hypnagogic process (i.e., the physiological/phenomenological transition state between waking and sleeping)." EMP (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'm at a disadvantage here, since you're quoting from an obscure 1983 textbook which I have no way to access. This textbook appears to have ceased publication 30 years ago, in 1986, and even then you're citing an older edition. While I have access to one of the most extensive academic and medical library systems in the world, this book is not in the catalog, which leaves me all the more impressed that you have it at your fingertips to quote, as needed, to rebut inconvenient findings. That said, given the history of questionable source use in this topic area, I'm uncomfortable citing an outdated editing of an extremely outdated and obscure textbook that no unaffiliated editor is in a position to verify. I don't doubt the accuracy of the quotes you've provided, but I do have concerns about both the use of an old edition and the selective provision of context. MastCell Talk 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that 44 copies of the book are available on Amazon. And I've mentioned a couple of times a 2006 research review that covers all of the studies discussed in the book plus over a dozen more recent ones. [8] EMP (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that you removed your contention that this book is widely carried by libraries, because I was unable to reproduce it. I spoke to my friendly neighborhood medical librarian, who indicated that while the book has never been carried at my institution, it would be possible to obtain the most recent 4th edition (from 1986) through inter-library loan. I mentioned that I was interested in a previous edition, the 3rd edition, and he asked: "Why would you want an old edition, when the book hasn't even been published since 1986?" Good question. It's my perspective that there is a library of canned citations which are used by the TM movement to rebut common concerns about the literature supporting its product, because I don't believe that someone using normal approaches to the medical literature would immediately turn up this citation and present it to "rebut" the Science papers. Regardless, though, I am not comfortable using this source because I don't think it can reasonably be verified by independent observers, even those (like me) with substantial institutional resources. MastCell Talk 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe you should just stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on every editor, and actually assume good faith once in a while. -A1candidate 17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, thanks for the feedback. My underlying point is that we should not use this source, since its content cannot reasonably be verified by an independent observer. MastCell Talk 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasn't suggesting we use the book. I was suggesting, for a third time, that we use the 2006 review.
My initial WorldCat search for the book showed that it is available in 400+ libraries, but on double-checking found that figure only applies to all editions of the book, from 1976 to 1986 [9]. I removed the figure very shortly after posting on this talk page, before any discussion took place. A subsequent search shows that ten US university libraries have the 1983 edition, so one could certainly verify content [10].
However, this is beside the main point—that the 2006 review [11] is a better source. EMP (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

A logo used to show TM practice.

Could someone please adjust the caption to the lead image (preferably with sources) to clarify what it depicts and/or how it relates to TM? The current version is vague enough that I think the image is more likely to be confusing than helpful. The image description calls it Illustration of the mental process called "transcendence", which is slightly more informative, but that seems be in tension with the current text which just calls it a logo. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a logo, its the personal work of an anonymous French editor.[12] The French website for TM has a round blue circle with a gold tree as the logo. This round blue circle with the gold tree is the same logo that appears on multiple TM web sites for various other countries as well.[13] None of the sites I checked use the image currently displayed in the article. The only place this image appears on the web is on this WP page. [14] Therefore the current image appears to be fraudulent and I've removed it. -- KeithbobTalk 19:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
These people use it [15] Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:Jmh649, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The logo on the page you've cited [16] and the one you've placed in the article are completely different. You must have been in a hurry because anyone can see they are not the same. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my comment above the French editor who uploaded this image says in the images file that it is his/her own work. We cannot make up our own version of a logo and then claim it is the official logo of a multinational non-profit. Don't you agree? User:Sunrise, you were the one who originally brought up this concern. What are your thoughts on this?-- KeithbobTalk 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No thoughts really. :-) I was just reading the article and the caption seemed unclear to me, so I thought I would leave a note here for other editors to consider. Sunrise (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is just TM like. I guess we can upload the other logo and use it under fair use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it. If you would like to upload the correct logo, under fair use, and place it in the article as you've described. I would have no objections. Thanks for your help. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 16:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are research and review findings presented out of chronological order?[edit]

Really. The topic heading says it all. There's a progression (in my mind) of better-done research with more positive reviews, and yet the section on health benefits ends with older comments that aren't specific to TM anyway. That smacks of editorial bias in my little mind. Sparaig2 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)