Mindfulness

Villagio · 24-01-2015 8:49pm

OP watch Eckharte Tolle YouTube videos.

Leopardi · 24-01-2015 10:58pm

As for evidence in favour of mindfulness meditation, here's an intriguing article from a very reputable source:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/01/eight-weeks-to-a-better-brain/

CarpeDiem85 · 24-01-2015 11:11pm

I did a mindfulness course last year and I found it amazing. It really did make me feel more present in the moment and gave me techniques to get rid of negative thoughts as I was going through a patch with a relationship at the time. I'd definitely recommend. Not sure if I can post the name of the girl I did the course with on here but there is a place in Donegal called Ards Friary. It's such a beautiful place and they frequently run mindfulness courses.

random.stranger · 25-01-2015 12:10am

So it's a 6000 year old fad?

5uspect wrote: »

I'm all for positive thinking, relaxation, healthy eating and exercise, I don't like the notion that it should be tied up in some new age philosophy and sold as a product that somehow is better than the former.

OP:
I was lucky enough to cross paths with Buddhist Monks doing workshops on mindfulness & meditation, it changed my life. Its not a quick fix though, I think the key is to not try too hard & don't beat yourself up when your mind wonders. The benefits may be very small at the beginning, but if you persist with it you will get better at meditating & feel much better in every way.

It is something I have found to be useful in particularly stressful situations, when dealing with deadlines, sleep deprivation etc. But as I say, you may need to build up your base first. If you try it now & it doesn't work out, I'd suggest you consider coming back to it when you are not so stressed & give it a proper shot, as it will be easier to get into when you are not under so much pressure. It will be a priceless life skill when you go through a stressful patch in the future.

Mindfulness needs to be approached with an open mind, some people will never get it.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 12:15am

random.stranger wrote: »

So it's a 6000 year old fad?

...

Mindfulness needs to be approached with an open mind, some people will never get it.

I love how I get accused of being closed minded when I'm the only one posting links to peer reviewed research. Sigh.

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 12:25am

5uspect wrote: »

I love how I get accused of being closed minded when I'm the only one posting links to peer reviewed research. Sigh.

If someone spends 15 minutes a day listening to a recording or similar, and it works for them, is that a problem.

I don't know what your problem is with it. It's not Scientology.

bigdaddy2010 · 25-01-2015 12:29am

5uspect wrote: »

There's no real evidence that mindfulness works any better than taking time out, relaxing or exercising; it's mostly just a bunch of rebranded Buddhism.
If you're feeling stressed consult your GP.

Wouldn't be my first option personally. 60 euro to put you on pills or refer you to counsellor. 60 euro could be spent better elsewhere

5uspect · 25-01-2015 12:51am

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If someone spends 15 minutes a day listening to a recording or similar, and it works for them, is that a problem.

I don't know what your problem is with it. It's not Scientology.

It's not too much different IMHO, both seem aimed at extracting money from people. Both have religious elements. Both claim to have tools and techniques that affect your mind. The Mindfulness movement is far more wooly and a lot less aggressive however. Plus they get a free ride on the media to make claims about efficacy that are not backed up by the science.

I'm a big proponent of understanding things as best we can. If a technique like meditation really works I want to know why and how we can really get something from it. Certainly the Pharma industry is over zealous in pushing a lot of drugs while withholding much of the trial data. If such techniques work reliably for depression and other mental illnesses that would be absolutely fantastic. However people let their personal experiences cloud their judgement and since they met that deadline without a panic attack it must work. It's no different to regression to the mean in relation to cold remedies.

bigdaddy2010 wrote: »

Wouldn't be my first option personally. 60 euro to put you on pills or refer you to counsellor. 60 euro could be spent better elsewhere

And herein lies the problem with our approach to mental health.

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 12:56am

5uspect wrote: »

It's not too much different IMHO, both seem aimed at extracting money from people. Both have religious elements. Both claim to have tools and techniques that affect your mind. The Mindfulness movement is far more wooly and a lot less aggressive however.

I'm a big proponent of understanding things as best we can.

I think you're confusing it with what most people take for mindfulness.

It's been used in CBT as one of many tools to help people. By people with no vested interest in The Movement.

And the mindfulness is pretty simple to understand.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 1:15am

I think there is a large umbrella under which mindfulness falls and it gets conventionally intermixed when people make claims about it. I'm aware of its use in CBT but as the Cochrane Collaboration shows there simply isn't enough data yet to back up the claims.

Like I said I would like if such things work - but there must be solid evidence.

challengemaster · 25-01-2015 1:16am

5uspect wrote: »

The paper you did provide relates to sports performance, not stress, and had the words "An Initial Investigation" in the title. The paper had just 13 participants, 7 of which were control subjects, and the testing was a simple questionnaire. In the face of the large number of studies in the meta-analysis I'm simply flabbergasted. If this isn't cherry picking I don't know what is.

Furthermore the ISI WOK citation report 2013 lists the impact factor as 0.933 (0.700 without self-citation) and 35 or less publications per year.

JCR?RQ=GRAPH_IMPACT&journal=SPORT+PSYCHOL&rank=76

JCR?RQ=GRAPH_IMPACT&journal=SPORT+PSYCHOL&rank=76

Combined with a $2000 open access fee... I'm not sure it's a journal I'd be trusting my life with.

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 1:27am

5uspect wrote: »

I love how I get accused of being closed minded when I'm the only one posting links to peer reviewed research. Sigh.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mindfulness-can-improve-your-attention-health/
http://oxfordmindfulness.org/science/
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/gg_live/science_meaningful_life_videos/speaker/jon_kabat-zinn/the_science_of_mindfulness/
http://marc.ucla.edu/workfiles/pdfs/MARC-mindfulness-research-summary.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144007.htm https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/04/mindfulness

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124160316000037
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:JOPI.0000010885.18025.bc#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691400453X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714008246
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691714001877
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691714002226
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124160316000153

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 4:42am

5uspect wrote: »

I think there is a large umbrella under which mindfulness falls and it gets conventionally intermixed when people make claims about it. I'm aware of its use in CBT but as the Cochrane Collaboration shows there simply isn't enough data yet to back up the claims.

Like I said I would like if such things work - but there must be solid evidence.

I think you're attributing more to it than the OP, or anyone else had ever intended.

99.9% of people are just talking about listening to a recording or something along those lines for 15 minutes to flush out extraneous thoughts or address something that is perhaps stressing them.

It's not my thing but if it was I'd rather spend my time doing that than reading papers on it to see if it might help or not because of the lack of negatives for most people that engage in it.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 11:55am

sup_dude wrote: »

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mindfulness-can-improve-your-attention-health/
http://oxfordmindfulness.org/science/
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/gg_live/science_meaningful_life_videos/speaker/jon_kabat-zinn/the_science_of_mindfulness/
http://marc.ucla.edu/workfiles/pdfs/MARC-mindfulness-research-summary.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144007.htm https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/04/mindfulness

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124160316000037
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:JOPI.0000010885.18025.bc#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691400453X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714008246
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691714001877
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691714002226
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124160316000153

So you're going to drop all those there without context or discussion? Half of them don't even appear to be peer reviewed and are just articles or opinion pieces. How do they fit into the wider studies I've posted?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I think you're attributing more to it than the OP, or anyone else had ever intended.

99.9% of people are just talking about listening to a recording or something along those lines for 15 minutes to flush out extraneous thoughts or address something that is perhaps stressing them.

It's not my thing but if it was I'd rather spend my time doing that than reading papers on it to see if it might help or not because of the lack of negatives for most people that engage in it.

If something can be shown, in a double blind trial, to work as an effective intervention for a medical problem, be it headaches, stress, back pain etc we have a name for it; medicine. We need all the therapeutic treatments we can get in particular those that don't rely too heavily on an often delinquent Pharma industry who have behaved appallingly when it comes to antidepressants.

If Mindfulness methods do have a real and measurable effect on stress levels we should be researching it for that purpose. It's not good enough so say that it's just a tape you like to listen to now and again, that's either a tacit admission of its ineffectiveness or a selfish refusal to share some secret knowledge with society. (For fear of letting the genie out of the bottle?)

We live in a world were we live longer than ever thanks to medical science. About all that kills us nowadays is cancer, heart disease and suicide. There is massive research into early cancer diangostics (an area I've worked in) which is the best way to treat cancer. Heart disease is all about healthy diet and exercise. Suicide and mental illness is more complex - if somebody wants to make claims about techniques that can even remotely help, your damn well sure I'm going to want to see it fully pursued.

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 12:06pm

5uspect wrote: »

So you're going to drop all those there without context or discussion? Half of them don't even appear to be peer reviewed and are just articles or opinion pieces. How do they fit into the wider studies I've posted?

If something can be shown, in a double blind trial, to work as an effective intervention for a medical problem, be it headaches, stress, back pain etc we have a name for it; medicine. We need all the therapeutic treatments we can get in particular those that don't rely too heavily on an often delinquent Pharma industry who have behaved appallingly when it comes to antidepressants.

If Mindfulness methods do have a real and measurable effect on stress levels we should be researching it for that purpose. It's not good enough so say that it's just a tape you like to listen to now and again, that's either a tacit admission of its ineffectiveness or a selfish refusal to share some secret knowledge with society. (For fear of letting the genie out of the bottle?)

We live in a world were we live longer than ever thanks to medical science. About all that kills us nowadays is cancer, heart disease and suicide. There is massive research into early cancer diangostics (an area I've worked in) which is the best way to treat cancer. Heart disease is all about healthy diet and exercise. Suicide and mental illness is more complex - if somebody wants to make claims about techniques that can even remotely help, your damn well sure I'm going to want to see it fully pursued.

Fine. You go and see it fully pursued. Those who find it beneficial to use mindfulness techniques during their day can do that.

No one has suggested it as a treatment as an alternative to medicine but to complement it and in the case if the vast majority of people who use it, they're nowhere near a point of requiring medical intervention.

For example, if someone undergoing CBT for an eating disorder is advised to apply mindfulness as they eat in order to strip back the anxiety that they get around eating, would you rather they were just prescribed tablets instead?

It's a very simple thing. No one is suggesting it as an alternative to medicine but as a means of addressing certain issues, it had its place amongst a suite of measures.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 12:21pm

I'm not talking about alternative or complimentary medicine, those are bogus terms, if it can be shown to work it is medicine. I want people to get treatment that is known to be effective. People here are claiming that it works wonders. If this is true then is should be investigated and exploited. Some have posted links to studies that are of poor quality or cherry picked and deny the meta-analysis findings.

It's not about prescribing pills*, I'm getting exasperated that I keep having to repeating this, it's about demonstrating that a treatment works. If a patient is advised to use these techniques as part of a wider treatment we need the evidence that this is beneficial. As the Cochrane Collaboration summary shows the data simply isn't there and the bias within the field is blinding people into producing bad data because they're so invested in it.

*The exact same argument applies to pills.

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 12:28pm

5uspect wrote: »

So you're going to drop all those there without context or discussion? Half of them don't even appear to be peer reviewed and are just articles or opinion pieces. How do they fit into the wider studies I've posted?

Articles and opinion pieces, but did you see who by? I've also divided the two because I know the first ones are not peer reviewed. My point is that just because you drop peer reviewed studies, doesn't make you right. The second half of what I posted are peer reviewed studies that show that mindfulness has positive effects on health and negative effects of stress and other disorders. You said you thought mindfulness was the same as homeopathy, it's not.

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 12:35pm

5uspect wrote: »

I'm not talking about alternative or complimentary medicine, those are bogus terms, if it can be shown to work it is medicine. I want people to get treatment that is known to be effective. People here are claiming that it works wonders. If this is true then is should be investigated and exploited. Some have posted links to studies that are of poor quality or cherry picked and deny the meta-analysis findings.

It's not about prescribing pills*, I'm getting exasperated that I keep having to repeating this, it's about demonstrating that a treatment works. If a patient is advised to use these techniques as part of a wider treatment we need the evidence that this is beneficial. As the Cochrane Collaboration summary shows the data simply isn't there and the bias within the field is blinding people into producing bad data because they're so invested in it.

*The exact same argument applies to pills.

Unless a study is carried out on every instance where it is beneficial, then you don't have evidence for every situation. The absence of evidence doesn't imply evidence if absence.

For the most part, we're talking about normal, functioning people in this thread. People who have found a benefit. No one is mentioning that it cures anything but that it has helped them. Anecdotal evidence.

And where if is suggested in instances like CBT for eating disorders, it is suggested as something the person might try to see if it helps. It's not suggested because it will definitely help. Whatever a study will suggest still doesn't mean it would help. Just that there is evidence to suggest it might.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 12:45pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Articles and opinion pieces, but did you see who by? I've also divided the two because I know the first ones are not peer reviewed. My point is that just because you drop peer reviewed studies, doesn't make you right. The second half of what I posted are peer reviewed studies that show that mindfulness has positive effects on health and negative effects of stress and other disorders. You said you thought mindfulness was the same as homeopathy, it's not.

And a few of those links are just chapters from the same book.

You just dropped a bunch of links into a post without comment or context and it seems solely for the reason of cheap point scoring.. You provided no rebuttal to my arguments. I've provided context. I've explained why meta-analysis is a better measure of effectiveness in the face of well documented bias.

You can post articles with small sample numbers showing effectiveness all you want but the full picture comes into focus when you compile all the data and the only conclusions that can be drawn so far is that Mindfulness works no better than other treatments or in the case of CBT there simply isn't enough data.

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 12:52pm

5uspect wrote: »

And a few of those links are just chapters from the same book.

You just dropped a bunch of links into a post without comment or context and it seems solely for the reason of cheap point scoring.. You provided no rebuttal to my arguments. I've provided context. I've explained why meta-analysis is a better measure of effectiveness in the face of well documented bias.

You can post articles with small sample numbers showing effectiveness all you want but the full picture comes into focus when you compile all the data and the only conclusions that can be drawn so far is that Mindfulness works no better than other treatments or in the case of CBT there simply isn't enough data.

I love how you dismiss it all so easily and yet you haven't even gone and checked yourself. Also, did you read the journal links? They're not the same book...
Take your pick: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-718907617&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&md5=06ee89345395abf385fd93c0b0dc1a58&searchtype=a

You talk about science in order to prove your point, yet with no research in both the positive and negative, you can't expect me to find your argument compelling.

Mindfulness may work no better than any other therapy or treatment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 1:21pm

sup_dude wrote: »

I love how you dismiss it all so easily and yet you haven't even gone and checked yourself. Also, did you read the journal links? They're not the same book...
Take your pick: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-718907617&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&md5=06ee89345395abf385fd93c0b0dc1a58&searchtype=a

You talk about science in order to prove your point, yet with no research in both the positive and negative, you can't expect me to find your argument compelling.

Mindfulness may work no better than any other therapy or treatment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You haven't provided any context for any of these studies. You haven't stated that most of them have only about 50 subjects. You haven't shown that they are well controlled, you haven't talked about the statistical significance. You just posted a bunch of links. If you replied to a peer review in that manner your paper would be thrown out. This is why I keep going back to the meta-analyses which do exactly that! Some studies are well conducted, some are biased by the inexperience of the investigators, personal bias, small sample size, statistical noise, poor control and some are completely fabricated.

We need to know WHY treatments work so we can design better treatments. In science the onus of proof is on those making claims, so in a way it's easy for me to be dismissive. This is why science is hard, this is why it is slow, but this is also why the scientific method works.

purplecow1977 · 25-01-2015 1:33pm

I spoke with a behaviourial psychologist who stated she uses mindfulness techniques in her sessions. She said it works for some people, it doesn't work for others. I suppose it's just another way of looking at things, and life.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 1:37pm

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I spoke with a behaviourial psychologist who stated she uses mindfulness techniques in her sessions. She said it works for some people, it doesn't work for others. I suppose it's just another way of looking at things, and life.

Quite possibly it can have a strong placebo effect. This certainly would make it valuable as it shouldn't have any real side effects.

purplecow1977 · 25-01-2015 2:51pm

5uspect wrote: »

Quite possibly it can have a strong placebo effect. This certainly would make it valuable as it shouldn't have any real side effects.

Yes of course it COULD be a placebo effect.

It reminds me a bit though of anger management techniques - closing eyes, counting to 10 silently, deep breaths etc. That's just a coping mechanism. I, in my naivety, view mindfulness as being similar.

Strategies and tips for dealing with things.

I can't think what sort of side effects there would be!

5uspect · 25-01-2015 3:35pm

Well that's why proper trials are important. The Cochrane summary suggests a short term benefit. Does this then just kick the can down the road only to cause later problems? We don't know. How does the workplace productivity of someone using these techniques change? They're less stressed but does the quality of their work change? We don't know.

Ideally there would be no side effects and a few exercises would calm and motivate people. Until the meta-analysis report clear positive effects I'm remaining skeptical.

Davei141 · 25-01-2015 3:54pm

So it is free, has no side effects and manages to help lots of people. Pretty weird thing to be so objectionable about. I guess there is always one on Boards.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 4:06pm

Davei141 wrote: »

So it is free, has no side effects and manages to help lots of people. Pretty weird thing to be so objectionable about. I guess there is always one on Boards.

It's not necessarily free, headspace charge something like €10 per month.
We have no data on side effects as the studies are insufficient.
We have no idea if it actually helps people better than placebo.

Have you even read the thread?

Alf Veedersane · 25-01-2015 4:17pm

5uspect wrote: »

It's not necessarily free, headspace charge something like €10 per month.
We have no data on side effects as the studies are insufficient.
We have no idea if it actually helps people better than placebo.

Have you even read the thread?

Genuine question: what exactly do you think possible side effects would be and it might be instructive to qualify that with what you are considering to be mindfulness because I just don't think your assessment of it tallies with mine and if it doesn't that might make things clearer.

Davei141 · 25-01-2015 4:25pm

Do you have to use headspace? No. What side effects? Tinnitus from listening too loudly? Wasting those valuable 10 minutes that could be better used having a valium? I've read the thread, I find your stringent opposition pretty strange.

5uspect · 25-01-2015 4:30pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Genuine question: what exactly do you think possible side effects would be and it might be instructive to qualify that with what you are considering to be mindfulness because I just don't think your assessment of it tallies with mine and if it doesn't that might make things clearer.

It mostly seems to involve meditation and mantras but appears to be nebulous as anything can be labeled as mindfulness (not unlike organic food) making a formal definition and test of efficacy difficult. This is part of my problem with it as we've seen here when discussing the results of the meta-analysis.

As for side effects see above, I wonder about its effects on productivity and critical thinking as well as long term effects but without data this is speculation.

Mindfulness

Comments