No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Meta-analyses of meditation studies have revealed mixed modest evidence of benefits across a range of outcomes. However, because this evidence-base is predominantly from brief interventions, it is unclear whether it accurately reflects how contemporary meditators practice or the dose–response relationship between amount of practice and outcome. This study sought to characterize how contemporary meditators practice, examine any possible dose–response relationships between historical practice and measures of psychological wellbeing, and explore which characteristics of practice most strongly predict favorable psychological outcomes. Methods One thousand six hundred and sixty-eight meditators (M = 1095 h practice, SD = 2365) responded to advertisements in meditation practice communities and social media. We explored associations between demographics, meditation practice characteristics, and outcomes including positive and negative affect, psychological distress, and life satisfaction in a cross-sectional study design. Results Historical meditation practice (accumulated lifetime hours) was significantly associated with favorable psychological outcomes (|r| ranging from .18 to .28). Model fit was optimized with a generalized additive model (average increase in R2 = 2.22), indicating non-linear effects. The strength of association between practice time and outcomes was generally strongest for approximately the first 500 h, before plateauing. Several practice types including Vipassana (as taught by S.N. Goenka) and cultivating practices (e.g. compassion, lovingkindness) were more strongly predictive of favorable psychological outcomes. Conclusions Benefits of meditation accrue over time in a non-linear manner, and show variation based on practice context. These results highlight the importance of understanding how the benefits of meditation accrue over longer time durations than typical standardized programs.

Transforming the global food system is necessary to avoid exceeding planetary boundaries. A robust evidence base is crucial to assess the scale and combination of interventions required for a sustainable transformation. We developed a risk assessment framework, underpinned by a meta-regression of 60 global food system modeling studies, to quantify the potential of individual and combined interventions to mitigate the risk of exceeding the boundaries for land-system change, freshwater use, climate change, and biogeochemical flows by 2050. Limiting the risk of exceedance across four key planetary boundaries requires a high but plausible level of ambition in all demand-side (diet, population, waste) and most supply-side interventions. Attaining the required level of ambition for all interventions relies on embracing synergistic actions across the food system.