Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
> My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> that they *were* taken in.
>
So, how much would you be willing to wager?
According to what I've read, there have been several
independent studies that indicate that the practice
of TM lowers blood pressure.
It does, but the amount was insignificant ("small, non-significant
improvement" the Alberta meta-analysis showed), the study giving the
best claim for TM also happened to be of the shortest duration of any
study and "The medium- or long-term trials did not find statistically
significant differences between TM® and HE [Health Education] for
changes in SBP [Systolic Blood Pressure]."
What's also bizarre and an obvious attempt to make tiny,
insignificant drops in BP look significant is what they compared it
to: Health Education. I'd like to see a comparison to other relaxing
forms of meditation. But if they did that, their control would truly
render the changes they are so desperately trying to tout, look truly
unimpressive.
In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence" scam where they
attempted to make a slight up-click in waking state coherence appear
significant. It was actually rather unremarkable.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: > > According to what I've read, there have been several > > independent studies that indicate that the practice > > of TM lowers blood pressure. > > Vaj wrote: > In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence" > scam > Like I said, your comments a highly biased. Again, not my comments, they are the findings of world-class Neuroscientists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: > There's been a lot of desperation from the TM side > as their "science" has been shown to be unsound, > esp. their cardiac claims. This is merely another > attempt to side-step those findings. > The claim that TM lowers blood pressure is one of the most agreed on effects of the TM practice, according to most researchers. I would hope ALL researchers would agree it drops BP. That's a no- brainer. But unfortunately, the amount of drop is insignificant according to objective science. Your comments indicate a severe bias, so cannot be trusted. Uh, they're not my comments, they're are researchers from the Univ. of Alberta. Don't you know you're supposed to read the posts before responding?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:35 PM, feste37 wrote: The argument isn't over TM and blood pressure, it's (1) how the TMO sees science as just a tool to be manipulated to sell its products and (2) how TBs point to blood pressure study to "prove TM works" really meaning "everything MMY says about anything must be true". I never said anything remotely resembling this. You invented it yourself. It's your fantasy. But isn't that really what you meant, feste? Most here would agree (and have many times in the past) that TM has positive effects on BP-- it's one of the main reason many of us started. It's the other ludicrous claims that most rational meditators can't bring themselves to take seriously. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:10 PM, feste37 wrote: No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, there is no possibility of any meaningful discusssion. OK, suit yourself. But that seems to be the subtext behind the often- defensive posts citing claims that "TM works." Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:14 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP? I would think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non issue. Certainly not enough to spend this much time on. Eat well, exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high blood pressure. Of course I could be way off with our aging mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now. I sure don't. I have to laugh at myself for being so concerned about this when I was young. I was so busy fixing problems I didn't even have that I ignored many real ones! Same here, pretty much, Curtis. I also believed the whole TM thing about staying away from Western doctors, counselors, etc. Bad idea to let someone else make decisions for you, especially medical ones. I did, however, have the sense not to buy into the whole AV thing, and I never got into Amrit. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published
On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:39 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote: Is there anyone here besides me who has actually read original TM research studies? Anyone here with enough science background, and importantly statistical methods education, to understand what you are reading? Does anyone here understand that there are serious bias issues regarding research conducted, designed or supported by insiders? Yes. And even if you weren't a scientist/statistician you could wade through the previously posted U. of Alberta study to see he specifics in regards to health claims, esp. re: bias. The article on Neuroscience and Meditation in the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness is also rather honest on meditation research in general, but also on the specious claims of the TMO.
