Mindfulness Therapy Is No Fad, Experts Say

[sabaijai]

Mindfulness therapy is no fad, experts say

There is solid evidence that mindfulness therapy, which combines elements of Buddhism and yoga, can relieve anxiety and improve mood.

By Chris Woolston, Special to the Los Angeles Times

8:36 PM PST, January 8, 2011

Of all fields of medicine, psychology seems especially prone to fads. Freudian dream analysis, recovered memory therapy, eye movement desensitization for trauma — lots of once-hot psychological theories and treatments eventually fizzled.

Now along comes mindfulness therapy, a meditation-based treatment with foundations in Buddhism and yoga that's taking off in private practices and university psychology departments across the country.

"Mindfulness has become a buzzword, especially with younger therapists," said Stefan Hofmann, a professor of psychology at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders.

Mindfulness therapy encourages patients to focus on their breathing and their body, to notice but not judge their thoughts and to generally live in the moment. It may sound a bit squishy and New Agey to some, but Hofmann and other experts say mindfulness has something that discredited theories of the past never had: solid evidence that it can help.

"I was skeptical at first." Hofmann said. "I wondered, 'Why on Earth should this work?' But it seems to work quite well."

Hofmann and colleagues burnished the scientific credentials of mindfulness therapy with a review article in the April issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. After combining results of 39 previous studies involving 1,140 patients, the researchers concluded that mindfulness therapy was effective for relieving anxiety and improving mood.

The treatment seemed to help ease the mental stress of people recovering from cancer and other serious illnesses, but it had the strongest benefits for people diagnosed with mood disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder and recurring depression.

Jordan Elliott, a 26-year-old marketer for a New York publishing company, said mindfulness training had helped pushed his once-disabling anxiety — about work, the weather, the meaning of life — into the background. "The anxiety is still there, but it's not as bad as it was," he said.

Elliott started getting one-on-one therapy four years ago at the American Institute for Cognitive Therapy in New York. It was hard at first, partly because he was skeptical of the technique and partly because he didn't feel particularly mindful. "I was such a nervous wreck I could hardly sit still for three minutes," he said.

Now he starts every day with a 10-minute meditation. He sits cross-legged in his apartment, TV and music off, and thinks about his breathing.

"When a negative thought pops off in my head, I say to myself, 'There's a thought. And feelings aren't facts.' "

Elliott said he was taking Prozac before he started mindfulness therapy, but he no longer needed medication to keep his anxiety under control.

"It's pretty clear that people can improve their health if they can encourage this practice in their lives," said David Fresco, an associate professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio. "But we have to be careful not to move beyond the data too quickly."

Fresco warns that mindfulness treatment is unlikely to help someone suffering from severe and ongoing depression. Those patients, he said, need a more active approach to recovery, perhaps including antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapy, a type of counseling that encourages patients to question the validity of their negative thoughts.

Once recovery from depression begins, however, mindfulness therapy could provide a valuable defense against future episodes, said Zindel Segal, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto who was one of the pioneers behind mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, or MBCT, a treatment that combines mindfulness with cognitive behavioral therapy.

In December, Segal and colleagues published a study in the Archives of General Psychiatry suggesting that the treatment was as effective as antidepressants for preventing relapses of depression.

The study involved 84 patients who had recovered from at least two bouts of major depression. The patients were broken up into three groups: One had eight weekly group sessions of the therapy, one took an antidepressant and one took a placebo. Over 18 months, about 70% of patients taking a placebo suffered at least one more episode of depression. By comparison, only about 30% of patients receiving therapy or taking an antidepressant had a setback.

Segal said mindfulness therapy could help patients avoid rumination, the process of endlessly chewing on incidents from the past. Rumination is a driving force behind depression, he said, and it just doesn't mesh with mindful thinking. He also believes that by encouraging patients to focus on their current thoughts, mindfulness can discourage anxiety and worry — up to a point.

"If you're having panic attacks in the mall, mindfulness therapy on its own isn't going to be enough," he said.

Segal adds that mindfulness treatment changes the relationship people have with their emotions, so much so that shifts in brain activity even show up in magnetic resonance imaging tests.

"When your mind has a thought, such as, 'My colleague just insulted me at the office,' you can explore the consequences of that thought," he said. "Thoughts have a less intense grip because you are an observer."

Hofmann said most patients could pick up mindfulness fairly easily, but it's not for everyone.

"It takes quite a bit of intelligence," he said. "It's good for people who like intellectual stimulation."

In addition, children, older people (who tend to be more set in their ways) and rigid thinkers may have trouble understanding or embracing the treatment, he said.

Hofmann hopes that the ongoing flood of mindfulness studies will help clarify the benefits and limitations of the approach and ultimately shape the way that the therapy is offered in the real world.

"Some therapists embrace these new and sexy treatments without a lot of critical thinking because they sound cool," he said.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

[sabaijai]

An interesting operational definition of mindfulness proposed by researchers in clinical psychology, including measurable parameters:

http://www.rickhanson.net/wp-content/files/papers/DefiningMindfulness.pdf

[healthcaretaker]

It's definitely true.

I have been researching this field and how it is related to science for many years.

Yoga was associated with Hinduism and meditation was associated with Buddhism. Of course we know Buddhism was started by someone born a Hindu. Both are related but Buddhism is more advanced and newer with better explainations, making it closer to science..

Other religions will find it hard to chew but we can see today that more and more westerners are taking up yoga and meditation.

Yoga works both physically and mentally through its breathing and physical movements while meditation works purely on breathing and the mind.

They are all related "energy" and closer to quantum physics. Science may still take many more years to prove the effects of meditation but Buddha could know it 2500 years ago(before science exist) because he experienced it and see it through his "mindfulness" through "meditation". Of course that was 2500 years ago when the "energy flow" or "energy traffic" is less congested and in a purer form. Today there are so much radiation, activities and thoughts that congested the mind traffic and other energy flows that congested the whole atmosphere.

No matter how, those who experienced and benefited from yoga or meditation will promote it, whether science-proven or not. Just like accupuncture that science and western medicine do not accept in the past and present too.

Look at the fitness centers today, yoga lessons are being given and gaining popularity. Don't be surprised meditation classes will be added soon. Maybe even Buddhism lessons. If it can improve our mind and thoughts, why not ?

Edited January 20, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[Brucenkhamen]

Of course that was 2500 years ago when the "energy flow" or "energy traffic" is less congested and in a purer form. Today there are so much radiation, activities and thoughts that congested the mind traffic and other energy flows that congested the whole atmosphere.

This makes no sense, where did you pick up such a notion?

[healthcaretaker]

Of course that was 2500 years ago when the "energy flow" or "energy traffic" is less congested and in a purer form. Today there are so much radiation, activities and thoughts that congested the mind traffic and other energy flows that congested the whole atmosphere.

This makes no sense, where did you pick up such a notion?

It certainly makes sense. That was just 2 sentenses, of course you won't understand it. To understand as much as i did, I need a whole day or more to explain.

A little more here. The universe is expanding every movement, so energy level is generally getting weaker everywhere, thus people today are less likely to see the other worlds as easily as the past. In additions new technology and electronic energies and radiation further pollute and congest the energy world or the cosmic world.

Try to relate them to E=mc2 formula and apply the quamtum physics knowledge, you will understand better.

[Brucenkhamen]

It certainly makes sense. That was just 2 sentenses, of course you won't understand it. To understand as much as i did, I need a whole day or more to explain.

pass.

A little more here. The universe is expanding every movement, so energy level is generally getting weaker everywhere, thus people today are less likely to see the other worlds as easily as the past. In additions new technology and electronic energies and radiation further pollute and congest the energy world or the cosmic world.

Try to relate them to E=mc2 formula and apply the quamtum physics knowledge, you will understand better.

I don't think you'll find any such notion in the Pali Canon.

Do you present this theory as science or as Buddhism or as something else? either way can you post links to sources?

[healthcaretaker]

It certainly makes sense. That was just 2 sentenses, of course you won't understand it. To understand as much as i did, I need a whole day or more to explain.

pass.

A little more here. The universe is expanding every movement, so energy level is generally getting weaker everywhere, thus people today are less likely to see the other worlds as easily as the past. In additions new technology and electronic energies and radiation further pollute and congest the energy world or the cosmic world.

Try to relate them to E=mc2 formula and apply the quamtum physics knowledge, you will understand better.

I don't think you'll find any such notion in the Pali Canon.

Do you present this theory as science or as Buddhism or as something else? either way can you post links to sources?

Bruce,

The Pali Canon is not new knowledge. Mine is new, of course you don't find it there.

I shall say that this theory is scientific(today) and happens to be coherent with Buddhism teachings. In another 2500 years or less, they may be neither scientific nor Budhhist but just "common knowledge". As Buddhist is about LIFE and LIVES, biology is part of science and science is about everything including human and all living things. Sounds confusing, let me put it in a simpler manner:

Every living thing has 2 bodies, the visible(we call body) and the invisible(mind, soul or spirit whatever). Science(with a history) today have studied and know the visible one, which is our physical body. Buddhism is more on the invisible body. It is always the invisible body that controls the visible body. This is because things smaller in size is more powerful and also travel faster and come before than larger and produces stronger energy. Think of telepathy, the bombs invented and the energy formula. For eg. it's thoughts in the mind that cause the body to make physical action.

Have you heard of stories about people seeing ghosts ? Have you heard from anyone that saw someone who passed away earlier in the day ? Have you heard of stories about people remembering something of their past life ? They are DEFINITELY not coincidents or lies. Science cannot prove it today because we lack the "practical" equipment needed. All other theoritical explanations are already found.

They are all related to the invisible body and science is making study on it

I am neither a scientist, a writer nor a Buddhist although I have practised all in some areas.

Those are all scientific discoveries, some old, some new and not widely known yet. I merely make my own research with those knowledge. You don't find them(yet) exactly in any links yet. I have not posted them anywhere.

If anyone is interested, I am willing to depart or "detach" all my knowledge to anyone who will find it more useful than me.

Edited January 22, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[Brucenkhamen]

The Pali Canon is not new knowledge. Mine is new, of course you don't find it there.

I shall say that this theory is scientific(today) and happens to be coherent with Buddhism teachings. In another 2500 years or less, they may be neither scientific nor Budhhist but just "common knowledge". As Buddhist is about LIFE and LIVES, biology is part of science and science is about everything including human and all living things. Sounds confusing, let me put it in a simpler manner:

Every living thing has 2 bodies, the visible(we call body) and the invisible(mind, soul or spirit whatever). Science(with a history) today have studied and know the visible one, which is our physical body. Buddhism is more on the invisible body. It is always the invisible body that controls the visible body. This is because things smaller in size is more powerful and also travel faster and come before than larger and produces stronger energy. Think of telepathy, the bombs invented and the energy formula. For eg. it's thoughts in the mind that cause the body to make physical action.

So you claim to have superior knowledge to Buddhist teachings then?

My advice would be not to try and walk before you can crawl.

Your theories might be interesting and might be plausible but if you want to believe them as fact or deliver them as fact then you either need to put

up proof, or shut up.

Anybody starting of a spiritual path or learning a worldly skill starts by following a methodology that has been taught by someone else before, once they have mastered that then they have the solid foundation and freedom to add something of their own.

So my advice would be to start with the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, the 3 characteristics, and rather than speculating on a visible and an invisible body look into the 5 aggregates.

If you do want to present non-buddhist ideas here then that's usually ok to a point, but I think it would then be a good idea to lay off others who also like to present non-buddhist ideas here also.

[healthcaretaker]

The Pali Canon is not new knowledge. Mine is new, of course you don't find it there.

I shall say that this theory is scientific(today) and happens to be coherent with Buddhism teachings. In another 2500 years or less, they may be neither scientific nor Budhhist but just "common knowledge". As Buddhist is about LIFE and LIVES, biology is part of science and science is about everything including human and all living things. Sounds confusing, let me put it in a simpler manner:

Every living thing has 2 bodies, the visible(we call body) and the invisible(mind, soul or spirit whatever). Science(with a history) today have studied and know the visible one, which is our physical body. Buddhism is more on the invisible body. It is always the invisible body that controls the visible body. This is because things smaller in size is more powerful and also travel faster and come before than larger and produces stronger energy. Think of telepathy, the bombs invented and the energy formula. For eg. it's thoughts in the mind that cause the body to make physical action.

So you claim to have superior knowledge to Buddhist teachings then?

My advice would be not to try and walk before you can crawl.

Your theories might be interesting and might be plausible but if you want to believe them as fact or deliver them as fact then you either need to put

up proof, or shut up.

Anybody starting of a spiritual path or learning a worldly skill starts by following a methodology that has been taught by someone else before, once they have mastered that then they have the solid foundation and freedom to add something of their own.

So my advice would be to start with the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, the 3 characteristics, and rather than speculating on a visible and an invisible body look into the 5 aggregates.

If you do want to present non-buddhist ideas here then that's usually ok to a point, but I think it would then be a good idea to lay off others who also like to present non-buddhist ideas here also.

If you think whatever Buddhism taught 2500 years ago can never be proven right or wrong in a scientific manner, you are 2500 years behind time.

I never claim I have superior knowledge to Buddhism teachings. I only said I have some knowledge of scientific link to Buddhism teachings. What non-buddhist ideas are you accusing me of ? Go and study some science before you comment me on that. If you cannot accept Buddhism to be scientific, it's like blind-belief.

I think you have some problem in interpreting others.

Yes, maybe you can crawl better than me but likewise, you should not jump before you can even walk.

I did not come to learn basic Buddhism here and I never asked for it.

I merely replied to the OP with my knowledge and you asked me for more. If you cannot accept what I know, show yours or evidence of it. If you can't, shut up. If you can't accept new knowledge, don't ask for it. If you can't accept someone better than you, don't correspond.

Don't confuse crawl, walk & jump just like you confused "detachment & non-attachment in another thread.

Everyone has the right to discuss here or give their opinions, whether agreeable or not. It's up to others to judge or respond.

Am I clear ?

Edited January 24, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[Brucenkhamen]

What non-buddhist ideas are you accusing me of ?

This one Every living thing has 2 bodies, the visible(we call body) and the invisible(mind, soul or spirit whatever). is in direct contradiction to the Buddhas teaching on anatta and the 5 aggregates, and the spirit/soul part sounds more like Christianity to me.

The following two sound on the surface of it like new age nonsense, however I’d be happy to retract that opinion if you have a Buddhist source you can quote;

Of course that was 2500 years ago when the "energy flow" or "energy traffic" is less congested and in a purer form. Today there are so much radiation, activities and thoughts that congested the mind traffic and other energy flows that congested the whole atmosphere.

The universe is expanding every movement, so energy level is generally getting weaker everywhere, thus people today are less likely to see the other worlds as easily as the past.

Go and study some science before you comment me on that.

If you cannot accept Buddhism to be scientific, it's like blind-belief.

I think you have some problem in interpreting others.

I’m not sure where this obsession about defending the idea of a synergy between Buddhism and Science that finds it’s way into most of your posts has come from. I haven’t noticed anyone else denying such a thing or showing an interest in discussing such a thing, if I’ve missed it perhaps you could point that out.

Yes, maybe you can crawl better than me but likewise, you should not jump before you can even walk.

I did not come to learn basic Buddhism here and I never asked for it.

I merely replied to the OP with my knowledge and you asked me for more. If you cannot accept what I know, show yours or evidence of it. If you can't, shut up. If you can't accept new knowledge, don't ask for it. If you can't accept someone better than you, don't correspond.

Don't confuse crawl, walk & jump just like you confused "detachment & non-attachment in another thread.

If you notice yourself getting negative feedback from people you converse with over the internet you might find this a useful opportunity to look into the nature of the Buddhas teaching on cause and affect.

Everyone has the right to discuss here or give their opinions, whether agreeable or not. It's up to others to judge or respond.

And I did.

[lungmi]

Of course that was 2500 years ago when the "energy flow" or "energy traffic" is less congested and in a purer form. Today there are so much radiation, activities and thoughts that congested the mind traffic and other energy flows that congested the whole atmosphere.

This makes no sense, where did you pick up such a notion?

Take a baby popcorn in the middle of four activated mobile phones and you can eat the full popcorn.

Try it.

[lungmi]

Take it cool.

Hamlet:

Swear by my sword

Never to speak of this that you have heard.

Ghost:

[Beneath] Swear by his sword.

Hamlet:

Well said, old mole, canst work i' th' earth so fast?

A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends.

Horatio:

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[healthcaretaker]

Bruce,

I shall not waste time replying until I see some improvements on your part.

First, you cannot even differentiate "detachment" and "non-attachment".

Now, I find that you can accept Buddhas teaching on cause and effect but not willing to accept my discoveries or explanation(which actually relates to it).

You don't make sense to me. IF you cannot accept my theories, fine and fair; but why you can accept Buddha's teaching on cause and effect ?

Is it because it's been accepted for 2500 years while what you heard from me is new ?

If so, as I said earlier, you are 2500 years behind time or just a common follower.

Thus, no point for me to tell you anything new.

[Brucenkhamen]

I shall not waste time replying until I see some improvements on your part.

Excellent.

First, you cannot even differentiate "detachment" and "non-attachment".

You might recall it was actually you who was using the word detachment where it is normal to use the word non-attachment.

Now, I find that you can accept Buddhas teaching on cause and effect but not willing to accept my discoveries or explanation(which actually relates to it).

You don't make sense to me. IF you cannot accept my theories, fine and fair; but why you can accept Buddha's teaching on cause and effect ?

I don't have a problem with your theories of you present them as theories, but I do if you present them as Buddhism or as fact.

Either way if you present your theories in a public forum you invite critique, if you aren't interested in that why present them at all?

Is it because it's been accepted for 2500 years while what you heard from me is new ?

If so, as I said earlier, you are 2500 years behind time or just a common follower.

Thus, no point for me to tell you anything new.

There is no need to get defensive if you have evidence or logical reasoning behind your theories, asking for evidence or logical reasoning behind a statement made is normal on a discussion forum.