
Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony - jaoued
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16369.full
======
con-templative
I cannot speak to this study in particular, but it is worth noting that a
recent meta-study found that the science supporting meditation isn't as strong
as people tend to believe: [http://www.tricycle.com/blog/meditation-
nation](http://www.tricycle.com/blog/meditation-nation)

Meditation has been touted as a cure for practically everything, a reputation
it cannot possibly live up to. This reputation is already creating a back lash
-- this article is one example:
[http://www.salon.com/2014/12/06/mindfulness_truthiness_probl...](http://www.salon.com/2014/12/06/mindfulness_truthiness_problem_sam_harris_science_and_the_truth_about_buddhist_tradition/)

I think meditation has something genuine to offer, but it's going to take some
time before there are enough quality scientific studies for a true picture
about meditation to arise. And before that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if
the pendulum of public opinion swung over to the other side.

For example, vulnerable individuals with a history of trauma may approach
meditation thinking it will cure all their problems and then be surprised by
intense memories of their trauma resurfacing, preventing them from going about
their day-to-day life. Such people rightly feel that meditation has been
incorrectly advertised.

------
s_baby
Always good to get scientific confirmation but this has been known for a
while. Here's a youtube example.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yil-
Oz2qBbg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yil-Oz2qBbg)

------
ambler0
"The subjects were eight long-term Buddhist practitioners (mean age, 49 ± 15
years) and 10 healthy student volunteers (mean age, 21 ± 1.5 years)"

Why not recruit older controls?

~~~
keithflower
Reasonable question.

They did comment on the issue in their discussion: "We examined whether age
was an important factor in producing the baseline differences we observed by
comparing the three youngest practitioners with the controls and found that
the mean age difference between groups is unlikely the sole factor responsible
for this baseline difference. Moreover, hours of practice but not age
significantly predicted relative gamma activity during the initial baseline
period."

