A new study published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress found that yoga can be highly beneficial when treating PTSD in war veterans. The study is the first of its kind to provide scientific support for the benefits of yoga’s breathing techniques for PTSD patients. It focused on the breathing and meditative based Sudarshan Kriya yoga practice, and involved a small randomized and controlled sample of patients who were diagnosed with PTSD after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Washington Post reports:
The study found that the group who had done yoga demonstrated fewer or less intense PTSD symptoms in comparison. Those who took part in the yoga sessions showed lower anxiety and lower respiration rates. They performed better in tests measuring eye-blink and breathing frequency in response to stimuli such as noise bursts, which are used to measure hyper-arousal and how an well individuals are regulating emotions. The researchers also found that the sessions helped with intrusive memories: patients reported re-experiencing trauma during the exercises, but felt that the impact of the memories was reduced.
Read the full story here.
Ok, normally wouldn’t say anything but I like this website and Amber was one of the first people I heard speak frankly about psychedelics (thanks Amber!!), BUT… The difference between the headline and the first sentence of this article are just too disparate for me to not speak up. First of all, I’d submit that nowhere on this entire website should the word “proof” ever appear, especially not when referring to journal articles. The word you’re looking for is “SUPPORT”. The data support the hypothesis, not prove it, because the probability that the results are due entirely to chance is always more than 0%. A great threshold is 1%, but some areas of study only require 5% (meaning there is a 5% chance that your results have nothing to do with your hypothesis and are due entirely to chance). “Yoga can be highly beneficial when treating PTSD in war veterans.” Sounds promising and contains a number of qualifiers, whereas it immediately follows “Scientific PROOF”, which sounds infallible and absolute. This particular arena of reporting should be overly cautious about the ways in which pro-psychedelic arguments are made, especially when citing literature. The entire argument could be (and has historically been, along with many others) denounced due to this simple distinction. You claim it “proves” something, it demonstrably does not, therefore baby and bathwater go out the window. Just a tip/nitpick, keep up the awesome flow of important information!