The Real Alternative

Leave a comment

UCLA study endorses yoga to reduce Alzheimer’s risk

Special to

University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) “study finds that yoga and meditation can help minimize cognitive impairment”, according to UCLA release issued on May 10.

To reduce risk for Alzheimer’s, skip Lumosity (games claiming to improve memory, etc.) and get onto the yoga mat, this study by UCLA-led team of neuroscientists and funded by the Alzheimer’s Research and Prevention Foundation, adds in the release.

It further says: “If you or your relatives are trying to improve your memory or offset the risk for developing memory loss or dementia, a regular practice of yoga and meditation could be a simple, safe and low-cost solution to improving your brain fitness.”

Rajan Zed called the UCLA looking into the usage of multi-faceted yoga to combat Alzheimer’s “a step in the positive direction.” Zed urged all major world universities to explore various benefits yoga offers.

Yoga, referred to as “a living fossil,” is a mental and physical discipline for everybody to share and benefit from, says Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism. He says yoga can be traced back to around 2,000 BCE to the Indus Valley civilization.

Zed further added that yoga, although introduced and nourished by Hinduism, is a world heritage and liberation powerhouse to be utilized by all. According to Patanjali who codified it in Yoga Sutra, yoga is a methodical effort to attain perfection, through the control of the different elements of human nature, physical and psychical.

According to US National Institutes of Health, yoga may help one to feel more relaxed, be more flexible, improve posture, breathe deeply, and get rid of stress. According to a recently released “2016 Yoga in America Study”, about 37 million Americans (which included many celebrities) now practice yoga; and yoga is strongly correlated with having a positive self image.  Yoga was the repository of something basic in the human soul and psyche, Zed added.

UCLA claims to be “known worldwide for the breadth and quality of its academic, research, health care, cultural, continuing education and athletics programs.”

Leave a comment

Exercise – Anything is better than nothing

Leave a comment

Social Media Positivity: Being The Change

Leave a comment

Readiness for enhanced spiritual well-being

I was just surfing the web, looking for spirituality articles and came across this.

The nursing diagnosis readiness for enhanced spiritual well-being is defined as an “ability to experience and integrate meaning and purpose in life through a person’s connectedness with self, others art, music, literature, nature, or a power greater than oneself.” (Anonymous, 2002, p. 68) and was approved by NANDA in 2002.

Defining characteristics

A person with this diagnosis may:

  • Having an enhanced desire for hope
  • Feel that there is meaning and purpose to their life;
  • Have a sense of peace or serenity;
  • Surrender love;
  • Be forgiving towards themself, and request forgiveness of others;
  • Request forgiveness from others;
  • Have a satisfying philosophy of life;
  • Experience joy, courage, or heightened coping;
  • Pray or meditate;
  • Connect with others;
  • Provide service to others;
  • Experience connections with nature;
  • Experience connections with or a desire to create art, music, or literature, particularly of a religious or spiritual nature;
  • Experience a connection with a power greater than oneself;
  • Report mystical experiences;
  • Participate in religious activities.


  • Anonymous (2002). Diagnosis Review Committee: New and revised diagnoses. Nursing Diagnosis 13(2) p. 68-71. Philadelphia:NANDA

Article Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave a comment

What is the difference between religion and spirituality?

A lot of folks say that religion and spirituality are different. Some go as far to say that people go to church merely for social, emotional or aesthetic experiences. But this is a gross simplification, one influenced, I think, by the new ‘religion’ of science, which has brainwashed many.

Would the Catholic Church, for instance, have lasted over 2000 years if it was just about club membership, laughing, crying, and pretty sights and sounds? Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s sociological study, Commitment and Community suggests that most cults dwindle away and die after their charismatic leader dies. Not so with Christianity. The death of the leader made Christians even more committed, to the point of willingly undergoing cruel death at the hands of the ancient Romans.

Contrary to what the materialists say, many real, living people report experiencing a purely spiritual indwelling at their church. They also report feeling a great sense of peace, transformation, and a unique kind of spiritual elevation. It’s not quite the same as going to the bingo hall, the dance club or the football game. The funny thing is, those adhering to the new ‘religion’ of science tend to ignore or reinterpret these real life reports of church-centered spirituality to make them ft with their materialistic way of seeing things.

Even some who critique science and lean toward a Gnostic (gnōsis is a Greek word for “knowledge”) type of spirituality often say that religion and spirituality are like oil and water. They’ll never mix.

But for me there’s an overlap among religions and spirituality. They need not be mutually exclusive. Moreover, we’re all different, with our particular needs evolving to suit different stages of our lives. So we hear stories about firm fundamentalist Christians trying to convert people in their youth, who later in life question their beliefs and begin to explore new interpretations of ancient scripture (e.g. Bart Ehrman). Or the Catholic Mother Superior who drops out of her convent to become a professor, where she hopes she will encounter less chauvinism and institutional hypocrisy.

I’ve talked with many people whose needs are always changing. And I’m one of them. Why should life be any different? We’re not sterile creatures locked up in a test tube. We’re living, breathing, organic creatures thirsting for meaning in an apparently meaningless creation.


There’s no such thing as an ‘addictive personality’ – here’s why

Mark Griffiths, Nottingham Trent University

“Life is a series of addictions and without them we die”.

This is my favourite quote in academic addiction literature and was made back in 1990 in the British Journal of Addiction by Isaac Marks. This deliberately provocative and controversial statement was made to stimulate debate about whether excessive and potentially problematic activities such as gambling, sex and work really can be classed as genuine addictions.

Many of us might say to ourselves that we are “addicted” to tea, coffee, work or chocolate, or know others who we might describe as being “hooked” on television or using pornography. But do these assumptions have any basis in fact?

The issue all comes down to how addiction is defined in the first place – as many of us in the field disagree on what the core components of addiction actually are. Many would argue that the words “addiction” and “addictive” are used so much in everyday circumstances that they have become meaningless. For instance, saying that a book is an “addictive read” or that a specific television series is “addictive viewing” renders the word useless in a clinical setting. Here, the word “addictive” is arguably used in a positive way and as such it devalues its real meaning.

Healthy enthusiasm … or real problem?

The question I get asked most – particularly by the broadcast media – is what is the difference between a healthy excessive enthusiasm and an addiction? My response is simple: a healthy excessive enthusiasm adds to life, whereas an addiction takes away from it. I also believe that to be classed as an addiction, any such behaviour should comprise a number of key components, including overriding preoccupation with the behaviour, conflict with other activities and relationships, withdrawal symptoms when unable to engage in the activity, an increase in the behaviour over time (tolerance), and use of the behaviour to alter mood state.

Other consequences, such as feeling out of control with the behaviour and cravings for the behaviour are often present. If all these signs and symptoms are present then I would call the behaviour a true addiction. But that hasn’t stopped others accusing me of watering down the concept of addiction.

The science of addiction

A few years ago, Steve Sussman, Nadra Lisha and I published a review examining the relationship between eleven potentially addictive behaviours reported in the academic literature: smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, taking illicit drugs, eating, gambling, internet use, love, sex, exercise, work and shopping. We examined the data from 83 large-scale studies and reported a prevalence of an addiction among US adults ranged from as low as 15% to as high as 61% in a 12-month period.

We also reported it plausible that 47% of the US adult population suffers from maladaptive signs of an addictive disorder over a 12-month period and that it may be useful to think of addictions as due to problems of lifestyle as well as to person-level factors. In short – and with many caveats – our paper argued that at any one time almost half the US population is addicted to one or more behaviours.

A problem in many forms.

There is a lot of scientific literature showing that having one addiction increases the propensity to have other addictions. For instance, in my own research, I have come across alcoholic pathological gamblers – and we can all probably think of people we might describe as caffeine-addicted workaholics. It is also common for people who give up one addiction to replace it with another (which we psychologists call ““>reciprocity”). This is easily understandable as when a person gives up one addiction it leaves a void in the person’s life and often the only activities that can fill the void and give similar experiences are other potentially addictive behaviours. This has led many people to describe such people as having an “addictive personality”.

Addictive personalities?

While there are many pre-disposing factors for addictive behaviour, including genes and personality traits, such as high neuroticism (anxious, unhappy, prone to negative emotions) and low conscientiousness (impulsive, careless, disorganised), addictive personality is a myth.

Even though there is good scientific evidence that most people with addictions are highly neurotic, neuroticism in itself is not predictive of addiction. For instance, there are highly neurotic people who are not addicted to anything, so neuroticism is not predictive of addiction. In short, there is no good evidence that there is a specific personality trait – or set of traits – that is predictive of addiction and addiction alone.

Doing something habitually or excessively does not necessarily make it problematic. While there are many behaviours such as drinking too much caffeine or watching too much television that could theoretically be described as addictive behaviours, they are more likely to be habitual behaviours that are important in a person’s life but actually cause little or no problems. As such, these behaviours should not be described as an addiction unless the behaviour causes significant psychological or physiological effects in their day-to-day lives.

The Conversation

Mark Griffiths, Director of the International Gaming Research Unit and Professor of Behavioural Addiction, Nottingham Trent University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Leave a comment

All work and no play makes…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,019 other followers