User:Speedfranklin/Why do yoga articles get a free pass when it comes to medical claims?
I like yoga, I have many friends that like/teach yoga, it seems to help me relax and stretch and, in certain classes, even raise my heart rate. That said, yoga is not magic and it is not impervious to study. It's something that can and should be looked at through the lens of evidence-based medicine, like any other exercise practice. However, because of its origins in Eastern philosophy, its proponents resist allowing the evidence to speak for itself. This is frustrating for otherwise skeptical people who want to enjoy yoga for its possible health benefits without being associated with magical thinking surrounding it. Maybe participating in yoga without the "correct" mindset (swallowing everything the teacher claims) is pointless or maybe an example of cultural appropriation, but I believe this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On the Hatha yoga and article, there is an example of the unsubstantiated claims I decry: "It is also recognized as a stress-reducing practice." What exactly does "recognized" mean in this context? People in specific communities ascribe the beneficial effect to...what exactly? On its face, this might seem like a harmless claim (and a bad one at that because the "person" making the statement is the non-entity "It" and because there is no attribution), but someone who is researching stress-relief or deciding whether to start doing yoga might see this sentence and draw a conclusion that can *only* be misinterpreted since no actual information is presented. If it is, in fact, "true", the article's author is doing the concept a grave disservice by not doing their homework to find out more about this claim such as how it was tested (was the study rigorous in its identification of bias?), what the precise results were (did they show dramatic or modest decrease in stress? were the effects temporary or ongoing?), what kind of population was used (do older people see a greater decrease in stress?), etc.
Another example, in the mudra article: "Even a single breath cycle of this mudra can significantly stimulate the body". In this scenario, the word "stimulate" is likely set in a yoga-specific religious context, but we are not treated to that qualification (anywhere in the article at least). Instead, one has to go on the common definition of the term: to raise levels of physiological or nervous activity in (the body or any biological system). This is a measurable phenomenon, and the qualifier "significantly" has a rigorous definition surrounding the statistical likelihood of non-coincidental effects. However, on wikipedia, we have to uphold the idea that the information presented is accessible to all, regardless of familiarity with the topic, backed up with non-original research. This article fails to achieve that goal on multiple counts, because without specific definition qualification of the words, one has to assume a definition (which is inherently medical and statistical), and because without attribution, one cannot check the validity of the statement. There are *dozens* of unsubstantiated, unqualified claims like this one in the yoga space on wikipedia.
(Aside: As a native English speaker, I can't even parse the phrase "A mudrā is...an energetic seal of authenticity"; energetic?; seal?; authenticity? If you need a degree in yoga to understand the context of the words being used, the correct words are not being used, IMHO.)
From the [prana] article: "Prana enters the body through the breath and is sent to every cell through the circulatory system." This statement is made, unqualified, unattributed, and unexplained and leaves me with the uneasy feeling that the information presented is useless, but also that I cannot improve it because I don't have "expertise" in this area to do so.
"Why can't you let people just say what they want about yoga? It's basically just a religion after all, and we don't regulate claims made by Catholic priests." This is a good point, and unfortunately, most outside the medico-skeptic community are likely to see my gripe as an non-issue, but one walks a fine line with charlatanism when claiming stress-reduction (or the like) because unlike the services priests may provide, yoga is rarely free of charge. Unfortunately, yogis that make these claims sound more like Scientologists to me than the ascetic monks who laid out the framework for their practice. In general, people aren't that good at distinguishing evidence-based claims from those made by self-described "experts" furthering their personal financial/religious goals. And because yoga straddles the boundary between exercise and religion, it seems to get a free pass when it comes to making outlandish claims about its efficacy around promoting health. We should resoundingly reject these claims which are at best, based on true anecdotes, and at worst, based on an extortion scheme to get hapless individuals to pay exorbitant fees to yoga studios/teachers that yield benign results.
Yoga is undoubtedly beneficial (very few deny this, including doctors and skeptics), but only insofar as any musculo-skeletal stretching routine with an emphasis on breathing throughout the stretch (rather than holding your breath) that also happens to be fun is, and *that's* what the evidence shows. The section in the main yoga article Potential benefits for adults is actually pretty good, and should be a model for the rest of the articles in the yoga space. Of course, if you want to participate in the religious aspect of the community, by all means do so, just don't try and pass off medical claims as somehow based in anything but oft-repeated anecdotes, at least until more research is done. Speedfranklin (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)