"Questionnaires are notoriously meaningless." Ditto for the designation ADHD. I've seen more than a few internet shouting matches about what ADHD is or is not other than answers to a set of questions. The science is hypothetical at best, but definitely there is no singular condition that IS ADHD.

What the study proposes then is a magical cure for an imaginary disease, just like the pharmaceutical companies, but not as effective. Oh, I've been dx'ed ADHD.

Methinks you have opened another pandora's box.

Had I been born 5-7 years later than I was, I would have been given Ritalin, no doubt.

But, happily, my parents got the idea to get me into sports.

And, Ron, Pandora is my friend

I have a sneaking suspicion that a prescription for daily, vigorous exercise (remember what that is?) would snuff out the Ritalin business overnight. Many studies have also documented the benefits of the same daily, vigorous exercise on depression but of course there is no profit to be had from an activity that does not require expensive proprietary drugs.

I used to call this stuff 'common sense' but that is a misnomer, it seems to be increasingly uncommon 'these days'

(I put that last in for you, Ron, I noted your prior antipathy to such generalisations)

For the record, it took me a very long time and much personal experience to begin to recognise this uncommon 'common sense.'

'What the study proposes then is a magical cure for an imaginary disease,'

What a telling comment, which could be equally useful to bear in mind in all 'spiritual' as well as medical pursuits.

Those Greeks weren't so daft either, even in those days–what was left in the box after Pandora so disobediently opened it and let loose all manner of troubles on the world (again the woman's fault) was Hope–and what a two-edged sword that has proved.

My favoutite zen teacher, who spoke little English, adored the adage "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" and would quote it with glee at every opportunity.
He would also teach that to meditate is to practice for the coffin, his instruction was that every time you sat on the cushion you should be mentally climbing into your coffin.
(I wonder how that image would come up on an MRI scan?)
I found this strangely beneficial but it did nothing for the local crime statistics unless you count its efficacy at keeping me off the streets and out of jail–how do you start to measure those outcomes?

One of the outcomes of long term meditation is a blurring of rigid distinctions and demarcations between 'meditation time' and 'non-meditation' time. It is like the saying 'you can take the boy out of Glasgow but you can't take Glasgow out of the boy.'
I find that the meditation attitude I aquired is now present at all times, and is particularly apparent during sleep.

So, Steven, I would contend that there probably is no difference between a ten minute nap and a ten minute meditation session.
I'd still like to see a study though.

I'd like to see that study too, Ellen… and then add a few more groups to see which produces the greatest effects:

10 minute massage
10 minute funny TV show
10 minutes of sex (which could be 2-5x for some)
10 minutes of seeing your bills paid by the study
…

Indeed this is a weak study. That's why the authors referred to it as a pilot study. It doesn't seem fair to generalize from this study to all research on Transcendental Meditation. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that TM has sponsored studies, but many of the best studies have been sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, has granted over $25 million to fund medical studies on Transcendental Meditation. These have been rigorous, randomized controlled trials, and they've been published in top medical journals.

By the way, a controlled study on Transcendental Meditation and ADHD done at American University will appear soon — this month, I believe.

If you follow your logic, then you shouldn't take any medication that your doctor prescribes next time you are sick. After all, those studies were done by pharmaceutical companies that eventually sell those drugs. Trust me, Pfizer does not do research on drugs that Merck developed.

As far as your comments of TM research are concerned, the NIH has granted $24 million dollars over the past 30 years to study the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular health. The results of these controlled studies have appeared in some of the top medical journals in the country. These studies have been conducted at leading institutions and hospitals around the country, such as University of Pennsylvania, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center and the University of Iowa.

If you read the study on TM and ADHD carefully, it says that future larger studies are needed to determine whether there exists a correlation between TM and helping kids with ADHD. It also stated that this was a pilot study. But the results are promising enough to warrant these studies. What's the alternative? Put more kids on Ritalin?

Hi Tim,

Just because something is a "pilot study" doesn't mean it must or will be weak. There's no reason why one couldn't design a good pilot study.

The vast majority of the studies on TM have been sponsored by either TM practitioners or the TM organization (or its subsidiaries).

And my intention, as I've repeatedly stated (but nobody seems to read or care) is not to single out TM. MOST of the meditation studies are fraught with problems and errors of design — see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15973854?dopt=Abstract, for an example of researchers who share my concern.

Because of TM's funding and mission to scientifically validate it's theories and claims, there have been more studies of TM than of most other techniques, so it's providing a larger data set to examine.

BTW, The $25M is not just for studying TM, but for studying other practices as well. Nor is it from NIH, but instead from the NCCAM which, while affiliated with NIH, is a separate organization (widely held as a massive waste of money since they have not yet produced any specific evidence of efficacious "alternative medicine").

FWIW, at the NCCAM site, it says "NCCAM funded a systematic review of available scientific literature on meditation practices for health."

A review of literature is not the same as primary research and is only as good as the underlying literature.

In fact, what NCCAM reports on their site agrees with my fundamental point. Namely:

"While the study found some evidence suggesting that meditation is associated with potentially beneficial health effects, it also found that 'firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.'"

Further, "It is not fully known what changes occur in the body during meditation; whether they influence health; and, if so, how."

BTW, having something published in a "top medical journal" does not confer accuracy and/or validity either, as the recent reports on biased reviews in Science and JAMA reveal. And, it would be helpful to cite the specific article in the specific journal so that readers could determine if the claim you're making is true.

Hi Steven,

I'm not saying that the source of funding ALWAYS or INHERENTLY biases a study. But it's certainly one factor to examine when looking at a study. And there's more than enough evidence of funding bias to send up a red flag.

And while Pfizer or other pharmaceutical companies do fund studies, that doesn't prevent other researchers from validating (or invalidating, as the case may be) those studies… which is one reason we see various drugs and compounds being removed from the market. And if you think Merck isn't researching what Pfizer is doing, you're mistaken. They can't research the specific molecule(s), but if Pfizer has a winner (oh, Viagra), the other drug companies are all over it… hey, Lily, thanks for Cialis.

Besides, we don't have to rely on a study, or anecdotal evidence, to see the effects of a drug. Once it's out in the population, there will be plenty of REAL evidence to either support, refute, or amend the results of the study.

Most of the drugs my doctor prescribes are generics, which means they've typically gone through years of research, testing, and field results. Luckily, I have no need for anything that's still under patent. And, were my doc to recommend a drug that was new or still proprietary, I don't take her/his word as gospel. I was a pre-med. I know a lot of doctors. The white coat doesn't make them magically smarter than they were when they were doing beer bongs, and cheating in organic chemistry. I take their professional recommendation and then take responsibility for my own health by doing research. Glad they have them interwebs!

Regarding top medical journals and study sites: Just because something is published in a "top medical journal" doesn't mean the study proves "HEY! This this works!" Rather than quoting the impossible-to-support-or-refute "top medical journals," it would be helpful if you linked to the actual study in the specific journal so we could see what it actually DOES say. There has been more than one argument that a peer-reviewed, published paper either shouldn't have made it to press, or doesn't say what the researchers thought it said.

And, I couldn't care less where a study was done… "leading institutions" are manned by human beings, and human beings have been known, on more than one occaision, to design crappy studies. Some of the Harvard studies on meditation are pure crap. Why? Because of the same reason that most meditation studies are flawed: bad control group. Many meditation studies have as a control, a group who simply doesn't meditate. But that is a LOUSY control (for many reasons, which I've gone into in other posts). In fact, many meditation studies don't have ANY control groups.

Onto NIH… Just because NIH has spent time and money doesn't mean they endorse TM, or any type of meditation (that $24 mil did NOT just go to TM research… it also looked at mindfulness and other Buddhist practices, as well as non-secular practices).

Just take a look again at the quote from the NCCAM site itself about what they've found so far: "*potentially* beneficial health effects" and "firm conclusions cannot be drawn." After $24 million bucks and 30 years, don't you think they would have found something stronger than "potential", or been able to draw a firm conclusion? How many more years and how much more money do we need to get something unambiguous? (The answer is actually calculable, since it would need a highly randomized population in a very long-term longitudinal study that looks at specific factors from the outset rather than finding correlations after the fact).

In your last paragraph, you fall for a familiar logical fallacy: just because I don't take one position, doesn't mean I endorse its opposite (or whatever you suggest is an opposite).

If the study doesn't currently show that TM is efficacious at treating ADHD, then I don't recommend something else, I simply *don't* recommend TM (or any other form of meditation).

Besides, ADHD is an interesting thing to explore, considering how it seems to be the diagnosis du jour for behaviors that didn't used to have a stigma attached to them. Had I been born 5 years later, I probably would have been a Ritalin kid. Instead, I went into sports, lived through the occasional punishment I received when teachers would send notes home about how I couldn't sit still or was always talking in class, found ways to use my thinking process that worked for me, and became an entrepreneur who has never held a job and retired at 38. Glad I didn't get that Ritalin to "cure" me of my ADHD!

My hunch is that ADHD, as a diagnosis, will disappear when it's revealed to be a fictional "disease." (For those of you ready to jump down my throat, please re-read the first two words of that sentence: "My hunch…" I could be wrong, and I have no interest in topic drift about the reality, or lack thereof, of ADHD.)

I'd like to take this ADHD thing one step further then bring it around to show its relevance to the general discussion.

There has been an association made between ADHD and the D2R2 allele, a dopamine receptor gene, sometimes referred to as the novelty seeking gene. An individual with this trait has a lower response to dopamine, a neurotransmitter linked to reward or satisfaction, apparently driving that individual to more dopamine producing behavior than the average person. These behaviors include restlessness, exploration, addiction, novelty seeking and the ADHD set.

To the extent that ADHD characteristics reflect this genetic trait (there are other possibilities), ADHD is a normal human genetic variation and not a disease. In this case, attention difficulties only arise in unstimulating environments.

Hence novelty seeking, it has been argued, suits some environments, where moving around a lot and looking for things e.g. hunting, and not other environments, where routine and waiting are needed e.g. farming, classrooms.

Now it seems to me that a person biologically and temperamentally suited to roaming around and exploring isn't well suited to a farming, i.e. cultivating, approach to meditation, which may indeed be well suited to most others. It also seems, seeing that many with ADHD show extraordinary ability for concentration under certain circumstances, that given the right dopamine-boosting novelty-seeking circumstances, meditation could benefit the so-called ADHD.

The trick is to come up with a methodology for meditation that better suits novelty seekers, one that can harness the capability for intense specialized concentration but doesn't eventually lead to routine behavior and boredom, perhaps something exploratory in nature. It doesn't seem likely that plowing rows of TM mantras is the most effective way to elude boredom. Maybe that's why the sessions are kept short!

In any case, it would be interesting to quantify those human differences that affect meditation practice and sort or develop techniques to best implement those capabilities.

Great point, Ric.

There are a number of people who agree that "ADHD" is a useful genetic variation (way back when, people with those traits may have been the lookouts and scouts).

And matching the meditation technique to the person is another interesting point… in fact, here's a story about that:

I have a friend who is one of the first Western meditation teachers. In fact, when the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came to the States for the first time, my friend took MMY to a place that had just opened in his neighborhood — Disneyland!

Anyway, I had some letters that my friend's teacher, U Ba Khin, had sent to one of his other students, a woman called Mrs. King. In these letters, Ba Khin gives instructions for Mrs. King to help her master various subtle concentration practices.

I showed these letters to my friend who said, "I never knew Ba Khin new about this."

I was stunned. I said, "But you were supposed to take over his lineage, how did you not know about these techniques?"

"Oh, that's simple," he replied. "I'm not naturally skilled at concentration practice. I'm good at awareness — at moving from experience to experience. So all of his teachings to me were about maximizing what I naturally do."

In my meditation course (http://www.AdvancedMeditation.com) there are 10 different practices. Each one caters to a different personality (or a different phase in your daily experience). I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number (they say the Buddha taught a different technique to each of his 84,000 students), but it's my attempt to do something other than assume one practice fits all.

In a related note, one student emailed me and said, "I get it, the idea isn't to master ALL 10 practices… it's to find the few — or maybe only one — that you really resonate with and do that one! It's not about forcing yourself."

I agreed. And then he added, chuckling, "And my favorite practice is the one called Repairing the Universe…which is funny because when I first tried that one, I didn't like it at all."

So maybe today's practice isn't right for us tomorrow (on in 10 minutes, or in 10 years).

Oops. While the D2R2 gene has apparently been associated with ADHD (more so with alcoholism), the novelty gene is the DRD4 7 allele. (hey, i'm easily confused by letters and numbers. Two recent Science Daily articles refer to the novelty gene, one to african nomads, the other to risky financial behavior. And of course there is ADHD writer Thom Hartmann's book - The Edison Gene.

In any case i thought your 10 practices might fit in to the ADHD universe somewhere. Any chance of bringing them out in book form, maybe with a little theory of meditation too?

And the R2D2 gene is associated with making electronic trilling noises

Hmmm… book form. While there is an ebook that goes with the I AM Course, I'm not sure how effective it would be to try to learn the techniques from a book, in part because the initial instructions require little "additions" WHILE you're in the middle of doing the practice.

To take a break, read an instruction, and get back into it, might be a bit tricky (at the very least).

Hell, I was surprised at all the incredible feedback I got when I first made available one of the recordings of a practice (I had no idea how well, or not well, things would work outside of real-time).

Hey… Great post.
Well written and thought out. I have shared that same position for many years. However, I do not feel the need or desire to "fix" other people's practice… and I know you do not either.
I prefer mindulness for the simple fact it is has stood the test of time, and more recently science as well. It's a great addition to my chi-kung practice.
And all my respects to the TM practitioners. I have faith in your goals and means to achieve them.

Hmmmm… did we just become BFF?!

Saw you over at the Charles' forum. Will be looking forward to a long and fruitful friendship. Great Hub!

Hey there BFF, aka LVWC.

Welcome to the fun, aka "investigating this thing we call meditation"

been adhd my whole life yes its real and yes meditation works…dont ask about the journey it just been a long one and im 36 now

It also works very well with bipolar disorder.

I am not a member of the "religion of modern science" nor the religion of "modern medicine". So for what it's worth, if you want to know the validitiy of Transcendental Meditation, do it. Then you won't need "double-blind" studies to convince you.

Hi Bill,
While personal experience can be useful after the fact, it's not helpful when making a decision.
Since there are many different meditation techniques, and since some require more of a commitment than others (TM, for example requiring a heavy financial commitment, especially if you continue onto the additional techniques), we need to be able to determine, for example:
a) Are the claims and promises made reliably attainable?
b) If so, under what conditions? (e.g. if only people over 6' tall are able to use some meditation technique — I'm using a silly example for a reason — that would be important to know if you're 5'8")
c) And given a and b, above, do you want to put in the required efforts to get the promised results?