Talk:Health applications and clinical studies of meditation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] Rename article
The title of the article is too long and it seems to combine two or three topics into one. Any ideas or suggestions? Barkeep Chat | $ 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- obvious:split, less obvious rename to Meditation in Modern Medicine--Keerllston 03:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think particularly the section on perception can be split off, as well as the section on meditation and drugs, and then the article renamed to Meditation and Medicine or something like that.Snake666 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The meditation and the brain section
is just a Daniel Goleman essay. 67.81.102.176 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Research on Meditation
I had added this piece of info previously, intending to locate some source material for it, but in the interim Teardrop deleted it. I strongly suggest that it (or some similar statement) be reinserted with the appropriate suggested citation since without it, and especially since the article is specifically related to health applications and clinical studies, it is absolutely necessary to make a statement like the one I suggest: (Since there are various types of meditation, the effects of each must be considered independently. What may be true of one procedure, may not apply to another. Therefore, one would be wise to consider carefully the research done on each specific type of meditation, recognizing that findings on one type may not be automatically transferable to other types. References: http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/Research/ComparisonofTechniques/index.cfm ) Of course, the article should also remain unbiased, neither intentionally or unintentionally appearing to favor any particular type of meditation. Sueyen 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Sueyen. I think it's a good point. But I'm not sure your wording is appropriate. For example, it sounds like it's giving the reader advice, but that's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suggest something like this: "Studies show that various types of meditation have been shown to have varied effects on the brain and physiology and that the effects of one type may not be generalized to other types." And then use the same ref you provided. Actually, since that site quotes Jonathan Shear's book on meditation, we may want to simply cite the book. I've ordered it and will be able to add a citation that includes page number. It could go at the end of the intro. TimidGuy 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oxygen consumption, rejuvination and deep sleep comparison
I thinkg it would be good to have a graph comparison on oxygen consumption with deep sleep and also if possible its rejuvinating effects as compared to ordinary sleep or REM dreaming sleep.--Jondel (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Go ahead and add it. There is indeed research on this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adverse effects
A categorical discussion of the health effects of meditation seems counter-productive given then breadth and diversity of the subject. Also, the stated references are few in number and are too limited in scope for the same reason. Finally, references to Chogyam Trungpa as an authoritative source on possible detrimental effects seems somewhat misguided given the well-documented history of his substance abuse and other related problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.184.1.100 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
