***My Problem with Transcendental Meditation® Studies

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

First, a message to my readers who practice TM® (Transcendental Meditation®):

I am not taking any position for or against Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM® organization, TM® itself, or anything else related to TM®.

Now that we've taken care of that…

I do, however, have a position regarding the studies that have been promoted to "prove" that TM® is the best thing since meditatively sliced bread.

My basic position is this:

Most of these studies, maybe all of them, are pretty questionable.

Before any of the previously mentioned TM® advocates "get all up in my grill," (love that saying!), allow me to state my general position on meditation studies.

Most of these studies, maybe all of them, are pretty questionable.

I want you to understand that my criticism is about meditation studies overall and not about transcendental meditation. It just that TM® pays for more meditation studies than the Zen or the Vipassana groups do. It also has a larger outreach program, partly because of financial support from wealthy TM® practitioners such as film director David Lynch.

So here’s my complaint.

There was an article I read recently claiming, "Mediation Seen as Promising ADHD Therapy." It reported the positive impact of practicing TM® for kids with ADHD.

The problem comes from the fact that the design of the study doesn't permit you to come to the suggested conclusion.

How come?

Let’s begin with the most obvious problem, the size of the sample. The article reported, "The study included 10 children between the ages of 11 and 14."

TEN kids????

Ten children is a totally insufficient sample size for any conclusions at all.

That alone is enough to invalidate any claims the article makes.

But for fun, let's pretend they sampled 1,000,000 people. What was their method for determining that the students got better? "[T]heir ADHD symptoms also improved, based on questionnaires given to teachers and parents."

HUH?!

Questionnaires like this are more often than not completely meaningless. There is simply no way to get objective measurement from an opinion questionnaire. They are too tainted by cognitive biases (like, if you were observing your kid meditating for twelve weeks in the hopes that it would improve their ADHD, your natural instinct would be to search for any small sign that it was working, instead of finding something objective you could measure to determine its effectiveness without any of your opinions getting in the way).

So, here is the next problem: there was no control group of any kind.

To claim that students who didn't meditate are a control group is incorrect.

The meditating students need to be compared to students receiving some other intervention, such as napping for ten minutes twice each day. Or perhaps using a different meditation technique. Or maybe getting a new medication (one which was actually a placebo).

Then there is the fact that the teacher was aware of the study's search for improvements due to meditation (studies have demonstrated that teachers who are told they have gifted students will end up having students who do better even if they aren't, in fact, really gifted).

There is more I could say about this, but I am not writing a treatise on how to design a good meditation study, be it for Transcendental Mediation® or any other practice. I really just wish that studies on meditation could be done well enough to give us REAL results to look at.

(BTW, TM® and Transcendental Meditation® are registered trademarks of the Maharishi Foundation, Ltd.)

Author's Bio:

Steven Sashen began meditation when he was eight years old, was one of the first biofeedback pioneers, and researched cognition and perception at Duke University. In addition to a successful career as an entrepreneur and entertainer, Steven has taught transformational techniques around the world and developed the Instant Advanced Meditation Course, which Dr. Gay Hendricks calls, "Perhaps the fastest and easiest way to relax, expand awareness, and find deep inner-peace."

Additional Resources covering Meditation can be found at:

Website Directory for Meditation
Articles on Meditation
Products for Meditation
Discussion Board
Steven Sashen, the Official Guide To Meditation

Guest dave r

how much does the average meditator spend on the TM techniques, yagyas, amrit kalash, herbs, assemblies, etcetera? $20,000?

Guest joe

How much does the average meditator spend on TM techniques, courses, yagyas, world peace assemblies, etcetera. $20,000?

Anand

'transcending" by some TM'ers are simply brain states'. At the end of the day transcending is a subjective experience. If there is a way to produce a brain state which corresponds to transcending it certainly is desirable. But we dont have an example so far! Its very clear that ruth is very dismissive, maybe bcoz she has'nt experienced transcendeing yet and is unnecessarily occupied with brain states. If ruth can produce transcending by altering brain states I'll be the first one to go for it. Until then TM is the best available option.

Milly Swenk

It's totally disingenuous that the author begins by saying he is not taking a stand against TM. Obviously, he is. If you go to his Website, there are several instances where he expresses quite venomous rancor against TM. What's up with that? Is this just another case of someone promoting himself by way of criticizing someone else?

Tim Guy

Kelly, you have your facts wrong. All three authors of the University of Kentucky meta-anlaysis were from there, including the statistician. The most recent studies use poor controls? How does it get better than a randomized controlled trial?

Kelly

Gee from what I see Tim Maxwell V. Rainforth, Robert H. Schneider, Sanford I. Nidich, Carolyn Gaylord-King, John W. Salerno all have connections to TM and Maharishi U. Tell it to someone else. We've had enough of the deception and lies.

Wrong review? Kelly referred to it as the University of Kentucky review. One would assume, then, that Kelly meant the meta-analysis done at the University of Kentucky and not the one done at Maharishi University of Management. In what sense is it a lie if I point out that the none of the three authors of the Kentucky study is affiliated with Maharishi University of Management? The Rainforth meta-analysis found that TM is a clinically significant effect on hypertension, as did the Kentucky meta-analysis. The Alberta study found that TM has a statistically significant effect on hypertension. It did not fault TM researchers for using health education as a comparator. In those studies the control group was taught to use diet and exercise. Contact time was the same as the TM group. If these are such bad studies, why do they get published in leading medical journals, including Archives of Internal Medicine, which is published by the American Medical Association?

Ruth

TimGuy, you know that there are two Kentucky studies that reviewed TM blood pressure research. Both had James Anderson, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, as lead author. One was a review of roughly 107 studies, this one had significant TMO involvement, with the statistician having a direct affiliation with the TMO. The smaller analysis (of, IIRC, nine studies, 3 of "high" quality) had no direct TMO scientists involved. However, it was funded by Settle's foundation (a true believer and sponsor of many things TM) Anderson, the lead author, may very well be a true believer himself, though that is never disclosed. The two studies are promoted as rebutting the Alberta NIH sponsored review of meditation. Nothing in the Kentucky studies rebuts the problems cited in the Alberta analysis but they are nevertheless marketed as "definitive."

There was one Kentucky review. The other one was by MUM. Anderson was the sixth author on the latter study. In what sense does that make it a Kentucky study? Not sure why you keep referring to it as such.

who has paid for all those ayurvedic buildings @Fairfield, Iowa? how can the TM org. afford to own so much property all over the world? If the TM org. has all this money, why is the price to learn the TM siddhis $5,000?

Are you the same person as Kelly? Posting under both Kelly and Ruth? I remember having a similar conversation with you months ago. You made the same mistake, saying that the statistician on the Kentucky study was from MUM. You post widely, and there are many inaccuracies in what you write. Please be more cautious. The article on Dashboard conflates the two studies. You'd be better off getting your info from the studies themselves rather than the web.

ruth

I only post under "Ruth." I am not making a mistake, I am reporting what others say and it is common for both of the studies to be called Kentucky studies because of the involvement of Anderson and the University of Kentucky. It is only shorthand. And you don't get to decide what shorthand others are going to use. Do a Google search for Kentucky study blood pressure transcendental mediation and you end up with results showing both the 107 study analysis and the 9 study analysis. That is why my first post said this is confusing. It is confusing because the press and the TMO makes it so. Read the press releases, MUM and the U of K promote UofK's involvement in the 107 study analysis. Anderson is often the first to be quoted in press releases regarding the 107 study analysis. It is all in the marketing. I have in fact read both studies, though now it has been some time. Have

Guest

According to the University of Alberta study, the most reputable review of meditation and health claims to date, TM is the worst a lowering BP and it's probability of being the best intervention is 0% (zero per cent). It also stated: "TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients..."

Thanks HonestTruth. You should wear a cape! EXACTLY MY POINT. For example, I believe ALL of the latter studies mentioned above used horrible, long-obsolete controls: health education. How on earth could you get a good comparison to people just reading something? You need to compare to people who had some intro lecture or some prep conditioning that is positive (like TM intro lectures) and they need to be resting, doing something with their eyes closed, believing they'll get some benefits. WITHOUT that, you do not control for expectation or placebo. SO all the TM BS shows is expectation results and placebo response. Quite unimpressive.

Meridith Ann Lansford

These are obviously not scientists slamming the BP research. As a researcher myself, I can tell you it is quite common to compare protocols to health education. 'HE' has proven effective in many cases and we (uh, doctors) commonly recommend it as part of treatment plans. Perhaps the two of you should be wearing capes--Darth Veder capes! Who are you? And what's the big deal with this one ADHD study? I read it and it's nothing unusual for a small preliminary paper. No grandiose claims were made.

"see university of kentucky study" The University of Kentucky *review*, was a review sponsored by TM zealot Howard Settle with the numbers crunched by a Maharishi University statistician. In other words, a horribly biased attempt to cover the Univ. of Alberta review. But unfortunately, they got caught...again. :-)

Glory Dog

You're accusing scientists of fraud or incompetence, without offering proof of either. You're implicating the non-meditating scientist at U of K who was the lead researcher, along with the science journal and it's editors & peer-reviewers as complicit in publishing bogus research. Because you're negative toward TM, you make these harsh claims. But the accusations are empty rants. Where is the proof of any bias or errors among the scientists?

TomBall

There are over 600 studies on TM--published in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals--& over 50 randomized controlled trials. All of the major studies used control groups & are replicated. Typically it's not the peer-reviewers or scientists raising issues about TM research. It's almost always non-scientists criticizing & usually people promoting their own agenda. Sashen's remark that the TM org spends large amounts on research is not true. The TM org itself only partially funded a few "Maharishi Effect" studies. But the NIH has given $26M over 19 years, as have many private, non-TM-related foundations & corporations. Only a tiny fraction was funded by David Lynch. If the TM research were not solid, the journals wouldn't keep publishing it & NIH wouldn't keep funding.

I am not "anti-TM," I am pro science. Whenever the tm believers are presented with criticism of a study they point to the "body of research" on TM, like it is a sacred font of knowledge. However, when you look at individual studies in that body of research most are wanting and you are left with very little. This was the point of the Alberta analysis. The most significant thing is that even if you assumed the research was solid, the findings nevertheless are not earth shattering and nothing to get excited about. And it all could be placebo.

Such negative responses as "ruth's" come only from the small, vociferous anti-TM crowd, bless their hearts, but never from scientists or researchers. Sweeping criticisms dismissing the entire body of research on TM, but failing to mention a shred of evidence or offer rational explanation as to WHY the studies are "wanting," certainly have nothing to do with science & have everything to do with deep-seated prejudice against TM--or rather, against what such folks believe TM to be. Anyone who experiences transcending in meditation knows the effect is not placebo.

You TM'ers do like to patronize people, don't you. You don't know if I am a scientist or researcher or anything about me. As far as the "body of research," I gave a specific: the Alberta study that reviewed the body of meditation research, including TM, and found it wanting. BTW, you cannot know personally whether a perceived effect is placebo or not. In fact, if you thought you might be experiencing a placebo effect you probably wouldn't experience it! Everything I know about cognition and neuroscience says that the experiences of "transcending" by some TM'ers are simply brain states, and brains are machines with limited ability to introspect about their own natures. There is no evidence that brains can introspect down past the neural level to some ultimate reality. You can even manufacture similar brain states by electrically stimulating the brain.

"I really just wish that studies on meditation could be done well enough to give us REAL results to look at." Some of the most incredible scientific research on meditation has just come out in the last several years. Scientific evidence of samadhi in advanced Tibetan Buddhist meditators has already been replicated several times. And the Shamatha Project has produced not only meditators who could transcend for many hours at a time, it's also given us our best and most detailed longitudinal science to date. There are quite a few others, but make no mistake, the good science is out there. It's just not coming from the Transcendental Meditation people!

No, the ADHD study is not typical of studies on TM--that's just something someone SAYS to attack TM. The ADHD study is just a small pilot study. Most of the research studies on TM are much larger, well-controlled trials and are independently replicated. See PubMed or the bibliography. It's unbelievable that the TM haters have come out of the woodwork to attack this simple study on school kids. They think they can get away with it because being only a small pilot study it's an easy target.

Penelope Seago (General Self Help)

thank you

Guest1

Well, at least you make one good point. A pilot study of 10, with the subjects serving as their own controls (which only tested for the effect of the practice, but did not compare TM to anything else) is insufficient to draw any substantial conclusions about. But it was just that, a pilot study, which was based on standard psychological questionnaires (quite often used in psychological testing) and only considered the effects of adding TM to the normal ADHD treatment regime which includes drugs and counseling. The limited results suggested it was successful enough to warrant further study - no more and no less.

I find the article extremely bias and does nothing to further understanding about meditation, its benefits, or the science behind it, except for some of the wise comments addressing the thoughtless reactivity against the TM research.