--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Response below. > > > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings > provide > > > > > some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute > measures > > > > of validity. >>> > > > > > > Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in > > > physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research. > > > I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem. > > > > > ****** > > > > The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the > reduction of oxygen > > consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it > went something like this: > > > > Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their > measurements taken while > > meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely > to TM. > > > > Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes > closed reduced oxygen > > consumption by the same amount as TM. > > > > It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. "O2 consumption > twice as low as the > > deepest point of sleep" had been the "proof" of TM's profundity; > now TM was equivalent to > > sitting quietly with eyes closed. > > > > The next development was "metastudies" which showed that, according > to "global" > > measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. > The claim was the > > same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable > measurement. Now it was > > teased out of the statistics. > > > > The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months. > > > > L B S > > > > Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the physiology > of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was > that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. That > was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally acknowledges > that the early studies were flawed in that regard. > > O2 is no longer seen as a measure of rest during TM. > @@@@@@@@
To the best of my knowledge, Kesterson was the first (at least within the movement) to point out the design flaw. You are correct about the nature of his research; however, during the course of his research he pointed out the flaw under consideration here. The nature of the "smoothing over" had to do with finding a justification for maintaining the "twice as deep as sleep" epithet. As I mentioned above, this concept has been retained, but on the basis of metastudies, not on the basis of a single measure as previously. L B S ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
