Posted on

Brant Cortright on the role of neurogenesis in holistic health

neurogenesisdietI took a counseling class (Transpersonal Psychotherapy) with Dr. Brant Cortright while I was working on my first master’s degree at the California Institute of Integral Studies, way back in 1995. I liked him a lot. He had a gentle, genuine vibe about him. I can’t remember how it came to be that Dr. Cortright reappeared on my radar, but somehow I got wind that his recent work has to do with “neurogenesis” and its importance to holistic health.

Neurogenesis refers to the growth of new brain cells throughout life. According to Dr. Cortright, it was only recently discovered that neurogenesis happens beyond our 20s, and supposedly there is now sufficient research to support the notion that one’s rate of neurogenesis may be the most important biomarker for brain health. Furthermore, according to Cortright, a healthy brain will translate to optimal health at all levels: body, mind, heart, spirit. Low rates of neurogenesis are supposedly associated with a host of negative outcomes (e.g., depression, stress, anxiety, memory problems, cognitive impairments, impaired immunity), while high rates are associated with such things as robust health, cognitive advantages, enhanced memory and learning, protection from stress and depression, and high immunity. Many things that we do in life, so the story goes, unknowingly slow down our rate of neurogenesis, but we can increase our rate of neurogenesis through various dietary and lifestyle changes. Basically, we want to reduce, minimize, and eliminate the things that lower our rate of neurogenesis (and diminish brain health), and maximize and do more of those things that increase our rate of neurogenesis (and support brain health).

Some of things that Cortright recommends to support neurogenesis and brain health include the following:

  • Aerobic exercise
  • Mindfulness meditation
  • Diet (omega 3 fatty acids, blueberries, tumeric, green tea)
  • Good sleep
  • Minimize exposure to neurotoxic environments, stress, etc.

    • Much of what he’s putting forth with this “neurogenesis” spiel is consistent with my own integral health perspective, and I appreciate how he grounds the many dimensions of holistic health by focusing on how each affects brain health. Many of his recommendations are no-brainers (pardon the pun) from my perspective. Who would argue, for instance, against the health benefits of exercise, good sleep, reduced stress, and a healthy diet?

    The specifics about diet can be questioned, however. Having not reviewed “the research,” I’m not prepared to rebut Cortright’s specific recommendations. I can only say that I’ve heard other “experts” contradict many of the specific dietary recommendations he makes, and at this point I’ve almost given up on making sense of all the conflicting information out there on this subject. We all tend to inflate the importance of whatever studies support our pet theories, and to discount or diminish those that present a contradiction. Those of us who are left dizzy by the ever-shifting sands of nutrition science often end up, for lack of a more clear path forward, giving too much weight to our own anecdotal experience. For instance, I have a hard time believing all the “sugar is toxic” hype, in light of the fact that the first two-and-a-half decades of my life were spent eating (and thoroughly enjoying) a ridiculously large amount sugary foods. The quality of my life–in every way and on every level–was very, very high during those young, sugar-fueled years. And yet, I’m supposed to believe I was ingesting high quantities of poison everyday, with no noticeable negative effects?

    So, my concern here–again, keeping in mind that I have not waded through all the contradictory research first hand–is that Cortright might be too eager to accept whatever research, perhaps scant and preliminary, that supports his thesis. Neuroscience, in general, seems to be way over-hyped these days, and something about the way Cortright’s book is marketed (e.g., “Unleash your brain’s potential!”) has my internal “hype meter” bouncing around all over the place. But again, I realize that this is a pretty weak criticism, given that I have not read the book. I did, however, watch/listen to these public talks and interviews:

    I definitely find Cortright’s ideas on this topic interesting, and I will continue to explore the connections between diet, lifestyle, and brain health. Maybe I’ll even read the guy’s book, so I can comment intelligently on the subject!

    Posted on

    Integrative trends in counseling education

    Theory-and-Practice-of-Counseling-and-Psychotherapy-Corey-Gerald-9780495102083This semester I’m taking a “Counseling Theory and Practice” course as part of my graduate training. One of my big worries going into the program was that I wouldn’t be able to situate myself within the “mainstream” discourse in the field. When I graduated from college in the early 90s, it seemed as if there weren’t any conventional psychology graduate programs that acknowledged and appreciated an integral or integrative approach to mental health, which was one of the reasons I ended up studying East/West Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco. I thought of myself as being on the cutting edge back in those days, as one of the few who could see through all the reductionistic b.s. of “mainstream” or “conventional” psychology. And there was probably a little bit of truth to that. It’s only been in the last ten years or so that topics once thought of as woo-woo, like mindfulness, have been appreciated and embraced by mental health professionals outside of a few outposts in California, Colorado, and Massachusetts. But today, assuming the textbooks we’re using at New Mexico State University are any indication of wider trends, it seems that a full-on biopsychosocial, integrative approach to counseling theory and practice is at long last having its day. Here’s a quote from Chapter 1 of Gerald Corey’s Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy:

    To understand human functioning, it is imperative to account for the physical, emotional, mental, social, cultural, political, and spiritual dimensions. If any of these facets of human experience is neglected, a theory is limited in explaining how we think, feel, and act.

    Shit, that sounds an awful lot like the blurb on the front page of this website! Could it be that this integral health stuff is no longer such a radical idea?!?! Perhaps I’ll have to let go of this notion that I’m part of the avant-garde! I can live with that, I suppose… :O)

    My other textbook, Hackney and Cormier’s The Professional Counselor, has also alluded to an integral-ish perspective right off the bat, within the first few pages:

    Each individual is an ecological existence within a cultural context, living with others in an ecological system. One’s intrapersonal dimensions are interdependent with others who share one’s life space.

    Sounds a lot like the “woo” I studied in San Francisco back in the day! I can only hope this integrative vibe continues as the semester unfolds. It’ll sure make having to read hundreds of pages per week a lot less painful.

    Posted on

    The Embodiment of Freedom: An integral approach to optimal health and personal transformation (Part 2: Defining terms)

    "Transformation" by Rick Hocker (Click photo to go to http://rickhocker.com)
    As a student of psychology, both academically and in the broadest sense, I have surveyed a number of practices and fields of study that strive to help individuals become more fully themselves. These can generally be described as approaches to personal transformation — endeavors that work to provide a supportive context where individuals can learn to become more fully aware of their personal world of experience, and are encouraged to utilize that expanded awareness as a source of intelligent responsiveness and self-expression. What transforms in this process is the mode from which a person experiences self and world, such that the quality of one’s relations to self, others, and environment changes in enriching ways as one’s depth of awareness and range of responsiveness grows.

    This process whereby people move from a relatively unhealthy, inefficient, unfulfilling mode of functioning toward one of increased livelihood, health, and growth potential, has been understood in many different ways. The approaches that have had the greatest impact on my own life are those that understand personal transformation in terms of embodiment. A variety of theorists and practitioners — representing such fields as psychotherapy, somatics, phenomenology, ecology, psychology, and mindfulness meditation — have contributed a wide range of overlapping, interpenetrating perspectives that recognize the transformative potential of developing one’s capacity to be aware of and consciously responsive from embodied modes of experiencing (by which I mean experiences of bodily sensations and feelings — i.e. somatic/kinesthetic/proprioceptive experience in general). These perspectives share a broad understanding of the transformative process, which can be generally stated as follows:

    Human beings often remain stuck in relatively unfulfilling, unhealthy patterns or ways of living in large part due to a diminished state of basic self-awareness. Many individuals in this state are considerably diminished in their capacity to be aware of and respond from feelingful, sensual levels of experiencing . In order to move toward health, fullness of living, and actualization of potential, a person in this dissociated state must develop his or her existing self-sensing capacities and learn to authentically express him- or herself from this deeper, fuller sense of self.

    This general view of personal transformation has been understood in at least the following ways: in terms of psychological processes (i.e. dissociation and integration), interpersonal dynamics, socio-cultural/political factors, people’s relations with the earthly environment, sensorimotor functioning, and spiritual realization. The following inquiry is offered as one of many possible integral approaches to optimal health and personal transformation. I use the term integral in a broad sense, understanding an integral approach to be any that brings multiple perspectives together in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, integral is more or less interchangeable with terms like integrative and holistic or any other term meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and personal growth. Although integral is perhaps less familiar than the other terms mentioned, I use it simply as a matter of personal preference, no doubt owing to the influence of both Haridas Chaudhuri’s model of Integral Psychology (Chaudhuri was the founder of the California Institute of Integral Studies, where I studied for several years) and to Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory, which I find to be quite useful in framing “big-picture” multidimensional perspectives.

    In my next post I will explore this inquiry’s primary assumption: that life (at least in the modern West) is indeed plagued with a tendency toward alienation and dissociation, an attitude that drives a wedge between the thinking and feeling dimensions of being human. This fragmentation of consciousness not only renders us strangers to ourselves in a deep sense, but it also distorts and deadens the quality of relationship that is possible interpersonally, and between people and the earthly environment. Then I’ll look at some ways of facilitating personal transformation that arose in response to this alienated psycho-social situation, focusing on a select few approaches within the fields of somatics and psychotherapy.

    Posted on

    “Integral?”

    Question: What does “Integral” mean? What’s the difference between integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, wellness, etc.?

    My answer: As I use the term, “integral” refers to any approach that brings together multiple perspectives in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, the term “integral” is basically interchangeable with “integrative” and “holistic.” As a matter of personal preference, I like the term “integral.” I graduated from the California Institute of Integral Studies, which is grounded in the Integral Psychology of founder Haridas Chaudhuri, and I’m also a big fan of Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory.

    In general, however, the terms integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, and wellness are all meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and healing, as opposed to the disease-focused system associated with conventional medicine.

    Keeping in mind that most, if not all, healthcare practitioners—whether in conventional settings or integrative health centers—would claim to be treating the “whole person,” I agree with the following distinctions Dr. Elliott Dacher makes between conventional, complimentary and alternative, integrative, and integral approaches:

    [Article featured on Davi Nikent.org]

    The evolution of medicine in modern times has been from allopathic or conventional, to alternative and complementary, to integrative and now to integral.

    These can be defined as:

    Conventional: The traditional approaches of medical science.
    Alternative and Complementary: Healing approaches outside of the mainstream of western medical science.
    Integrative: The merging of conventional, alternative and complementary approaches under a single “umbrella” of care.

    Each of the preceding approaches, as they are currently and predominantly practiced in western culture, primarily focus on the biological or physical aspects of healing, emphasizing the role of professionals and their specialties, remedies and therapies in the treatment of physical disturbances. It is the recognition that these approaches have not addressed the whole person and therefore limit what can be achieved in health and healing that has driven the development of an integral approach.

    Integral: The expansion of the health and healing process to address the entire range of the human experience: biological, psychospiritual, relational and cultural. All are seen to contribute to the disease process and to health and healing. The expansion of consciousness, the inner aspect of healing, rather than the outer “medical tool kit” is a central aspect of the integral approach. The aim of integral medicine is broader than all preceding approaches to health and healing. The aim is to gain freedom from suffering and to experience the flourishing of the full potential of our humanity – the natural arising of an inner peace, wholeness, love, compassion and joy – that can sustain itself throughout the life cycle irrespective of the presence or absence of disease. This can only be achieved with an integral approach to healing that considers all aspects of the human condition.

    From the Practitioner’s Perspective:

    As a conventional practitioner I would approach the individual from the perspective of the physical symptom and disease, limiting my diagnosis and treatment options to those of western science. As an alternative and complementary practitioner I would approach the physical symptom and disease from the perspective of my particular training (acupuncture, chiropractic, nutritional, etc.) and formulate a diagnostic and treatment plan in relationship to my specialty. An integrative care approach combines conventional and alternative approaches to offer a broader spectrum of choices when treating the individual’s symptoms or disease. As an Integral practitioner I would approach the patient first looking at their entire life circumstance – biological, psychosocial, relational and cultural – focusing on the whole person rather than the disease, symptom, or my particular specialty, my diagnosis would include concerns in each of these areas of life and my healing plan would cover the broad range of needs and possible approaches necessary to move towards a larger health of the whole person. Because as an integral practitioner my vision is broader so also is that which can be achieved, a human flourishing vs. a physical healing. As an integral healer I must be in a transformative process myself as the driving force for a larger healing is not merely biological knowledge but an understanding and growth into a larger consciousness. An expanding consciousness is a key ingredient of an integral process.

    Elliott Dacher, MD
    March 2005

    Posted on

    Integral Health Coaching

    I’ve been working on a new project lately, namely to resolve this ongoing career dilemma of mine and finally start doing the kind of work I’ve been wanting to do for the past ten years. Through a stroke of good fortune/sweet synchronicity, I recently discovered Duke Integrative Medicine, which is right around the corner from me at Duke University. They have a brand new Integrative Health Coaching Training Program that is so “right up my alley” it’s just crazy. Check out the brochure if you’re curious to know the details.

    I’ve been searching for years for a profession that would allow me draw upon my unique background, interests and strengths. This has been a struggle, because aside from my bachelor’s degree in Psychology and my fifteen years experience in mental health, most of my other interests and experiences are more “off the beaten path,” like my master’s degree in East/West Psychology, my training in Hanna Somatic Education, and my interest in mindfulness meditation. As an “Integrative Health Coach” (I prefer the term “Integral” to “Integrative” — which is nod to my grad school days at the California Institute of Integral Studies, as well as my fascination with philosopher Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory), I can bring all these things together, both to help people move toward better health and to help me finally feel at home in the work I do week in and week out.

    So, I applied to the program, was accepted, and now damn it, I’m gonna do it! Look for my new website (integral health coaching dot com) a few weeks from now.

    Boo-ya!